• 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!

Collection of MFE admission numbers

Nice article; for us international students, Baruch is the most economical option since the low cost minimizes risk; however, I still really like Berkeley's program, since it seems to take in Phd's.
 
nice article especially since it is almost time to apply. The CMU application opens in a couple of days I think.
 
This is a great collection Andy. It would be better if programs were more open about their admission numbers.
 
What is it that people think admission numbers mean ?

If a course decided to accept 10% more people, the ratio would go down, does that means it has become a worse course ?

If a course director decided that Latin was a requirement for quants, and declined the 99% of quannabees who don't speak it, the ratio would go up, which by that metric would make a better course. One senior history tutor at Oxford had a thing for young blond men, and it wasn't until people began to notice the unlikely distribution of students who looked remarkably like each other (tall was liked as well), that steps were taken. But again, that would make history at Oxford 'better'.

Putting up the fees hard would allow them to provided better facilities and maybe better teachers, but that would reduce the number of applicants, so a better course would look less bad.

Also the 'votes' are by people who by definition know relatively little about this business.

The scope of newbies ignorance can be quite impressive. One very large bank found out that more entry level PhD quants had heard of me personally than their whole bank. We did some work for them to address that, but it wasn't that I am that famous, just that many science PhDs are ignorant of banking on a scale that is somewhere between funny and scary.
 
I get your point about the numbers not providing the complete picture but it is not the idea of why we provide such data.

It's not intended as a definite table of good and bad programs but rather to provide more reference data for people to make a more informed choices. In this niche field of quant education that is so lacking in transparency, this should be a welcome addition, don't you think?

As I state on our site's mission, one of our goals is to promote transparency among programs training future quantitative finance professionals.

If you have access to a secret system to help our members better gain insight into these programs, I would be the first person to want to know about it.

Also, let me just say that getting those numbers is no trivial task. For the majority of people here, this is the first time and the only place they see those numbers.

The numbers are interesting in its own right, least they are guarded like trade secrets. I had to jump through hoops, talk to multiple sources, dig through hundred of archived email and documents. About a handful of them are public and the rest is my private sources.

More than a dozen program directors are now aware at these numbers since yesterday, either via our Sept newsletter or by my direct email. None has said my numbers are wrong. When asked if my calculation is in the right ball park, one said simply "Yup". More than one admitted that this is the first time they see the numbers of competing programs.

I have numbers of other programs but the data points are far and few between to have a historical view of how they progress over the years.

And that's exactly why it's interesting to put the numbers together in one place. You have a better sense to how each program goes in and out of favor, what events explain the sudden jump and drop in each program in a specific year.

Again, you said something similar in the Acceptance Rate discussion, students will always try to make an ill-advised judgment on whatever numbers they can get.

My (our) job is not to make a decision for people, but rather provide much needed information and let people decide for themselves. We are all adults and I can't be held responsible for someone else costly $100K mistake.
 
The true reasoning behind the MFE admission numbers is a proof by contradiction. Unfortunately it can be used to prove arguments, for and against it.

Dominic has given some examples of proving it's inefficiency through contradiction.

I will prove its usefulness with examples.

1) University get's 500 applicants, admits 500 applicants. $50,000 tuition. What does that say about the program? University admits 400 out of 800. What does that say about the program?
The university might be purely in it for financial reasons. They want to admit as many students as they can fit in their premises and get the high fees to fund their departments, faculty, etc.

2) A University gets 500 applicants, and admits only 25-30 per year. What does that say about the program?
The program is very selective, which means the program is about education and not about pure money generation.

and so on...

Now the argument can be made for Part 1 that the higher tuition is to fund services for the students. Without fees, there would not be quality faculty, quality premises, etc. This is where the MFE admission numbers lack in it's portrayal of the "entire" program. It is one component, and should be taken as that one component. The next statistic, should be job placements, faculty, etc. Are these schools actually providing strong job placement services to their students ? Are these schools actually hiring faculty that can provide the best education to the students for the fees ?

Unfortunately, the sample in the statistic shown here is very small. It comprises mostly of the top programs. A very interesting statistic would be to see how "all" the schools admission numbers compare. But as Andy said, this statistic is not as trivial as one might assume it to be.
 
Back
Top