- Joined
- 2/25/24
- Messages
- 16
- Points
- 3
Hey everyone!
I hope all of you have already received or will soon receive that admissions email you have been waiting for. I know this is an anxious time and for those of you waiting, everyone ends up somewhere, and there is always a way forward, even if you dont receive an offer from your absolute dream school. Right now I would really appreciate your guidance on my own admissions decision. I am lucky to be in a position to have received 3 offers and really need some help to make a well-informed decision in the next couple of weeks.
Please, before you vote, read the whole post in order to get a more informed picture of the 3 programs and their differences, so that the survey is of higher quality. And please leave a comment about why you voted the way you did. I feel like every piece of information, no matter how small the insight, improves your decision making capabilities. So please feel free to leave even the smallest insights, they will be incredibly helpful - to me and all the others trying to decide between any of these programs or an MFE in general.
Generally said, my goal is to join prop-trading, HF or AM (I am most interested in quantitative investment & trading strategies rather than product structuring for example) so my focus is mainly on buy-side opportunities. Which of the universities, based on the information provided below, do you think is best suited for this goal?
A unique insight: I talked to a recent grad of the Columbia Business School MSFE (FinEcon) program, and they implied that internally among the programs, the CBS MSFE is regarded as comparable to the Princeton MFin. With Princeton being historically stronger, but CBS having caught up and perhaps even overtaken in the most recent years in terms of educational quality & prestige. Although an alum is certainly slightly biased
I am inclined to at least give it some thought as they seemed very genuine and objective. Looking at the Mini-PhD structure of the CBS MSFE I can believe that at least in terms of education it's at least on-par, and with both programs being housed in the ivy-league business schools, the prestige and network is there too.
Now to compare the 3 programs by important factors when selecting an MFE:
Tuition:
Average Salary Post Graduation:
Employment Outcomes
Reputation/Prestige (important for landing interviews):
Other factors:
Summary of most convincing points for each program:
I think if I don't get a scholarship then CBS might simply be too expensive as I will be in debt for too long. The other two programs I assume will provide job opportunities of equal level to CBS MSFE. I have also heard from many forum entries that all the really top programs will allow you to land interviews, and it is less important what the school is, as long as it's a top program, and then you will have to perform well on the interviews by yourself. This would imply that the best strategy would be to pick the program with the lowest costs, as I would get the same interview opportunities for all 3, and my performance in interviews will probably be the same irrespective of which program I attend. This is a big assumption though and please correct me if i'm wrong, for example I am still unsure how much networking and career services play a role for landing interviews (but I assume that I could network equally well in all programs).
From all these influential factors this is the big question: Which program is the best *long-term* Return on Investment. UChicago seems really good with only a 35k tuition and a 143k average salary and good employment companies. However, CMU is better ranked and provides a greater average starting salary of 160k, but also is ~50K more expensive. Is the 50k additional cost justified by the ~20k increase in potential salary? Well maybe - A higher starting salary can signal a better salary progression (e.g. people starting with 120k are likely in “standard” sell-side positions were progression is slower, while people starting at 200k are likely to be on the buy-side or in exclusive sell-side positions where future upside is larger). This could potentially indicate that a higher price tag really is worth it for the top programs, but I am unsure if my assessment is correct and would appreciate some guidance.
I would again like to ask you to provide even the smallest guidance or insights you have, even if you think they are redundant or obvious. Every piece of information will help me and others to make a more informed decision.
I hope all of you have already received or will soon receive that admissions email you have been waiting for. I know this is an anxious time and for those of you waiting, everyone ends up somewhere, and there is always a way forward, even if you dont receive an offer from your absolute dream school. Right now I would really appreciate your guidance on my own admissions decision. I am lucky to be in a position to have received 3 offers and really need some help to make a well-informed decision in the next couple of weeks.
Please, before you vote, read the whole post in order to get a more informed picture of the 3 programs and their differences, so that the survey is of higher quality. And please leave a comment about why you voted the way you did. I feel like every piece of information, no matter how small the insight, improves your decision making capabilities. So please feel free to leave even the smallest insights, they will be incredibly helpful - to me and all the others trying to decide between any of these programs or an MFE in general.
Generally said, my goal is to join prop-trading, HF or AM (I am most interested in quantitative investment & trading strategies rather than product structuring for example) so my focus is mainly on buy-side opportunities. Which of the universities, based on the information provided below, do you think is best suited for this goal?
A unique insight: I talked to a recent grad of the Columbia Business School MSFE (FinEcon) program, and they implied that internally among the programs, the CBS MSFE is regarded as comparable to the Princeton MFin. With Princeton being historically stronger, but CBS having caught up and perhaps even overtaken in the most recent years in terms of educational quality & prestige. Although an alum is certainly slightly biased
I am inclined to at least give it some thought as they seemed very genuine and objective. Looking at the Mini-PhD structure of the CBS MSFE I can believe that at least in terms of education it's at least on-par, and with both programs being housed in the ivy-league business schools, the prestige and network is there too.Now to compare the 3 programs by important factors when selecting an MFE:
Tuition:
- UChicago (60% scholarship —> 35k)
- CMU NY (15k scholarship —> 82k)
- CBS MSFE —> 140k-150k (scholarship awardees will be sent out in next couple of weeks, but it was mentioned that there is not much scholarship money to go around)
Average Salary Post Graduation:
- UChicago: 143k
- CMU: 160k
- CBS MSFE: ? - No answer from request, maybe you have some information
Employment Outcomes
- UChicago 2022: 41% Trading/AM/HF
- Companies include: Akuna, AQR, JaneStreet, Millenium, Bridgewater, Neuberger Berman, Chicago Trading, Optiver, Cubist (P72), State Street
- CMU 2023: 42% Trading/AM/HF
- Companies include: ExodusPoint, Millenium, Squarepoint, Chicago Trading, DRW, Fidelity, Marathon Trading, Northern Trace Capital, Advocate Capital Management, AQR, Blackrock, Blackstone, Elequin Capital, Ergoteles Capital, Flow Traders, Kaust IM, KKR, SIG
- 2022 had more big-brand HFs, 2023 lots of smaller ones
- CBS 2023: 24% went to Investment Management but sample size is so small and many go on to PhD - hard to compare to other programs
- Companies of last 2 years include: Jump Trading, Man Group, TCW
- Due to Mini-PhD structure you have access to jobs usually meant for PhD students (doesn’t necessarily mean higher salary)
- More Macro-focused jobs
Reputation/Prestige (important for landing interviews):
- UChicago: has a great name and is known for its academic rigor. Ranked Top 10-15 universities worldwide.
- CMU: decent name in general, great name for computer science
- CBS: Best name out of all 3 probably - Ivy-League privilege
Other factors:
- Chicago:
- Prop-Trading & HFT capital, might increase chances of landing a job in the field. (honestly probably won't, networking is just as good in NYC, perhaps even better)
- Also has a lower cost of living compared to NYC so I would save even more money
- Curriculum doesn’t look as buy-side oriented, with only few courses on Data-Science, ML, Computation
- CMU is *computational* finance, might be a pro for Buyside (esp. prop trading/HFT) where programming is essential
- I’ve heard great career services and networking events
- Apparently insane workload (sometimes unnecessarily)
- NYC “Campus” is a floor in an office building, No real campus life or amenities
- Flexibility - The high computational & data science focus opens up opportunities to go into more stable data science roles for Trading or HF, with exit opportunities into Tech (e.g. Google, etc.)
- CBS:
- Taking mainly PhD courses is very intriguing, might give best overall education.
- Includes economics and econometric related courses which I think is good to build a well-rounded finance profile. Generally interesting and useful for understanding financial markets.
- Doesn’t have a “proven” track record for employment because of the small sample size with a good amount going into PhD instead of industry. Heard various students/alum complaining about careers department being lacking. From latest info session with admitted students it seems like they are really stepping this up though and are really honing their focus on placing students into quant roles (however, they did mainly mention sell-side roles rather than buy-side roles)
Summary of most convincing points for each program:
- UChicago: Insane value for money. UChicago is a great university. Good location for prop-trading and cheaper living than NYC.
- CMU: Most rigorous and best ranked. Strong focus on computational side of QF (important for buy side)
- CBS MSFE: Mini-PhD: 10/16 required to be taken at PhD level, 2 years. I assume this makes the program extremely rigorous. Taking primarily PhD courses also probably looks very good on your resume.
I think if I don't get a scholarship then CBS might simply be too expensive as I will be in debt for too long. The other two programs I assume will provide job opportunities of equal level to CBS MSFE. I have also heard from many forum entries that all the really top programs will allow you to land interviews, and it is less important what the school is, as long as it's a top program, and then you will have to perform well on the interviews by yourself. This would imply that the best strategy would be to pick the program with the lowest costs, as I would get the same interview opportunities for all 3, and my performance in interviews will probably be the same irrespective of which program I attend. This is a big assumption though and please correct me if i'm wrong, for example I am still unsure how much networking and career services play a role for landing interviews (but I assume that I could network equally well in all programs).
From all these influential factors this is the big question: Which program is the best *long-term* Return on Investment. UChicago seems really good with only a 35k tuition and a 143k average salary and good employment companies. However, CMU is better ranked and provides a greater average starting salary of 160k, but also is ~50K more expensive. Is the 50k additional cost justified by the ~20k increase in potential salary? Well maybe - A higher starting salary can signal a better salary progression (e.g. people starting with 120k are likely in “standard” sell-side positions were progression is slower, while people starting at 200k are likely to be on the buy-side or in exclusive sell-side positions where future upside is larger). This could potentially indicate that a higher price tag really is worth it for the top programs, but I am unsure if my assessment is correct and would appreciate some guidance.
I would again like to ask you to provide even the smallest guidance or insights you have, even if you think they are redundant or obvious. Every piece of information will help me and others to make a more informed decision.
