• C++ Programming for Financial Engineering
    Highly recommended by thousands of MFE students. Covers essential C++ topics with applications to financial engineering. Learn more Join!
    Python for Finance with Intro to Data Science
    Gain practical understanding of Python to read, understand, and write professional Python code for your first day on the job. Learn more Join!
    An Intuition-Based Options Primer for FE
    Ideal for entry level positions interviews and graduate studies, specializing in options trading arbitrage and options valuation models. Learn more Join!

CMU MSCF CMU MSCF - NYC v/s PA

Hello everyone!

I am facing the same decision (PA vs. NYC) and I would be really grateful if anyone could help me with it. The discussion has already been quite extensive, but I have a more specific situation. I am an international student with BSc Economics and Finance and almost no relevant work experience. My main goal is to find an FT position in the US (preferrably in NYC).

With respect to my background adn goals, would you advise that I go to PA or NYC? I know that the cost of living is significantly higher in NYC, and this is quite important for me, but let us focus on nonmonetary factors.

Thanks!
 
Ivan Nikolenko said:
Hello everyone!

I am facing the same decision (PA vs. NYC) and I would be really grateful if anyone could help me with it. The discussion has already been quite extensive, but I have a more specific situation. I am an international student with BSc Economics and Finance and almost no relevant work experience. My main goal is to find an FT position in the US (preferrably in NYC).

With respect to my background adn goals, would you advise that I go to PA or NYC? I know that the cost of living is significantly higher in NYC, and this is quite important for me, but let us focus on nonmonetary factors.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Pittsburgh if you want more exposure to professors and a campus life
New York if you are more independent and if you want to take advantage of networking events.

I'm based in Pitt, but I don't see a remarkable difference in terms of employment (at least for internships).
It really depends on your needs.
 
Ivan Nikolenko said:
Hello everyone!

I am facing the same decision (PA vs. NYC) and I would be really grateful if anyone could help me with it. The discussion has already been quite extensive, but I have a more specific situation. I am an international student with BSc Economics and Finance and almost no relevant work experience. My main goal is to find an FT position in the US (preferrably in NYC).

With respect to my background adn goals, would you advise that I go to PA or NYC? I know that the cost of living is significantly higher in NYC, and this is quite important for me, but let us focus on nonmonetary factors.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

I am an international student myself, I did PA and I love it!!

In term of job searching/networking/interview, you will sometime have to spend extra money/time to fly to NYC(and you can temporary attend NYC campus lectures if it suits your schedule better). I had more than 10 trip to NYC, it is just 1hour flight so it's totally fine (and I even took a couple of exams at NYC campus). Most of the first round interview will be on phone anyway, and company does pay for your ticket and hotel for final round.
 
The final exam results are at least as disturbing as the midterm exam. Among the MSCF students, the grades break
down as follows:

100: 2 students
90-99: 6 students
80-89: 7 students
70-79: 13 students
60-69: 13 students
50-59: 20 students
40-49: 19 students
30-39: 18 students
0-29: 7 students

There were 22 students whose final exam grade was above their course average and who thus benefitted from the policy that replaced their course average with their final exam grade. The maximum of the course averages and final exam grades, and the resulting letter grades, break down as follows:

92 - 100: A+ (7 students in Pittsburgh and 1 student in New York)
84 - 91: A (5 students in Pittsburgh and 1 student in New York)
78 - 83 A- (5 students in Pittsburgh and 3 students in New York)
71 - 77: B+ (4 students in Pittsburgh and 4 students in New York)
65 - 70: B (6 students in Pittsburgh and 5 students in New York)
59 - 64: B- (7 students in Pittsburgh and 8 students in New York)
55 - 58: C+ (1 student in Pittsburgh and 10 students in New York)
51 - 54: C (4 students in Pittsburgh and 4 students in New York)
47 - 50: C- (4 students in Pittsburgh and 5 students in New York)
42 - 46: D (3 students in Pittsburgh and 5 students in New York)
0 - 41: R (3 students in Pittsburgh and 10 students in New York)
 
unhappy_mscf said:
The final exam results are at least as disturbing as the midterm exam. Among the MSCF students, the grades break
down as follows:

100: 2 students
90-99: 6 students
80-89: 7 students
70-79: 13 students
60-69: 13 students
50-59: 20 students
40-49: 19 students
30-39: 18 students
0-29: 7 students

There were 22 students whose final exam grade was above their course average and who thus benefitted from the policy that replaced their course average with their final exam grade. The maximum of the course averages and final exam grades, and the resulting letter grades, break down as follows:

92 - 100: A+ (7 students in Pittsburgh and 1 student in New York)
84 - 91: A (5 students in Pittsburgh and 1 student in New York)
78 - 83 A- (5 students in Pittsburgh and 3 students in New York)
71 - 77: B+ (4 students in Pittsburgh and 4 students in New York)
65 - 70: B (6 students in Pittsburgh and 5 students in New York)
59 - 64: B- (7 students in Pittsburgh and 8 students in New York)
55 - 58: C+ (1 student in Pittsburgh and 10 students in New York)
51 - 54: C (4 students in Pittsburgh and 4 students in New York)
47 - 50: C- (4 students in Pittsburgh and 5 students in New York)
42 - 46: D (3 students in Pittsburgh and 5 students in New York)
0 - 41: R (3 students in Pittsburgh and 10 students in New York)
Click to expand...

so what's your point?
 
that's not dissimilar from my year. and did professor larsen (or shreve or someone else?) give you permission to lift that? tsk tsk.
 
Thunderbird said:
This is unusual. What's wrong with this program?
Click to expand...


nothing. it's a much more difficult environment to land something than it was eight years ago. programs can bring employers in, but it's up to the students to close. simply showing up isn't enough to get a job anymore. you need a true interest in the discipline, you need to prepare for interviews, you need to have a story and be able to explain why you're interviewing, and you need interviewing skills. cmu helps with the interviewing process, but if you have no idea why you're in grad school or interviewing for a role, that's your fault. and i'm certain that is a large portion of it (and that's not something endemic to cmu, as i've interviewed students from other programs and they have honestly been even worse).

from looking at the list sent out earlier this week to alumni, there are two things that immediately stick out about almost all of those still looking for internships. and the number of students listed there is lower than what sour grapes up there has posted.
 
mfegrad said:
and the number of students listed there is lower than what sour grapes up there has posted.
Click to expand...

that statistics is at least a week old (but my impression is that even older, since the numbers are the same as they were 3 weeks ago, while I knew at least 2-3 people who got internships in the meantime).
So I'd assume that the real number as of today would be around 12-14.
 
Berkeley is showing 100% internship placement at average salary $7,300 per month and 100% full-time placement at average salary $158,000 per year. I am sure that Princeton will have similar stats.
So how come CMU is ranked # 1 with 6 failures and 18 students with no internships. These people are going to have over $120 K debt each. We would expect these stats from IIT-Chicago, not from CMU.
 
TraderJoe said:
Berkeley is showing 100% internship placement at average salary $7,300 per month and 100% full-time placement at average salary $158,000 per year. I am sure that Princeton will have similar stats.
So how come CMU is ranked # 1 with 6 failures and 18 students with no internships. These people are going to have over $120 K debt each. We would expect these stats from IIT-Chicago, not from CMU.
Click to expand...


link please?
 
TraderJoe said:
Berkeley MFE 2013 Internship stats:
http://mfe.berkeley.edu/careers/placement.html

Berkeley MFE 2012 Fulltime stats:
http://mfe.berkeley.edu/careers/placement2012.html
Click to expand...


I might be wrong, but you should just compare the average first year base salary of the ALL section, which is $93k.
CMU reports just that in the statistics (signing bonuses are separated) and it is $87k for last year's class.
These numbers really depend on how many students get analyst vs associate positions in my opinion.

By the way, the 100% statistic is impressive no matter what.
 
Keep in mind that the 100% internship placement is for off cycle internships (ones that ended Jan. 2013), which do not reflect reality. The 100% FT number is a little better, but it's for 6 months post graduation, where as CMU's 90% is 3 months post graduation. For a bunch of super smart numbers people, it seems like a lot of people don't know shit about numbers.
 
wow said:
Keep in mind that the 100% internship placement is for off cycle internships (ones that ended Jan. 2013), which do not reflect reality. The 100% FT number is a little better, but it's for 6 months post graduation, where as CMU's 90% is 3 months post graduation. For a bunch of super smart numbers people, it seems like a lot of people don't know shit about numbers.
Click to expand...
Okay, let us assume that you are better at numbers than ordinary people like us.
So according to your number crunching:
CMU (6 failures + 18 people without internships + 84% full-time placement)
=
Berkeley (100% internship placement with salary $7,300 per month + 100% Fulltime placement with salary $158,000 per year)
I don't know how many people will believe your number-crunching.
 
Back
Top