remylebeau
thanks for calling me out... you douche :p Actually, my impression of MSFE has gotten better with the newly available employment reports. With that said, I would appreciate more in-depth analysis...
My impression came from two sources.
1) Over a dinner conversation with a managing director of a major market maker, I was told that one year would simply be too short to learn QF (and that means you need to take MORE CLASSES, not DRAG ON YOUR SEMESTER TO FIT AN INTERNSHIP). The credit limit is mandated by the faculty senate and administrators, so the students are forced to select electives rather than learning all applicable aspects of FE as a general field. Markets, however, are intrinsically inter-connected. Your chosen electives' field might be completely gone when you graduate. Students' flexibility in choosing classes ironically limits their career options (imagine the surprise of those who specialized in structured finance during the subprime crisis only to find out THERE WAS NO DEMAND). In contrasts, CMU and NYU have fairly strict curricula and everyone takes the same classes. The faculty now must identify the core skills required for placement, so they limit their placement to a rather narrow field (S&T) where most of their graduates will end up. The more flexibility you have in a program, the less of a specialist program you seem to be because specialists don't get choices. You learn everything you're REQUIRED TO.
2) How much information schools divulge also shapes how they are perceived. Columbia students get a lot of job posting through their department-wide emails available to both undergrads and PhDs in OR, so they see a lot of non-quant opportunities. One of the most common complaints seem to be the lack of PERSONAL ASSISTANCE for placement (although the complaints came most often during the crisis, at which point there was nothing they could do). Understandably, people infer such inaction as a sign that the Columbia's staff are relying on the Columbia brand to promote their students. CMU, on the other hand, offers very clear idea to where all its alumni went. They have a very clear message about their program (we are computationally heavy), and their placement record speaks loud and clear about which industry they graduates excel in. Baruch has also done so with their placement record, and I think they definitely benefited significantly in terms of attracting top candidates with their openness.
Having sat in one of Columbia's classes before, I think the academic difference between two programs on a per course basis is marginal. With the exception of program length, most schools basically teach the same thing. But the MSFE brand is somewhat diluted with MSOR students who "specializes" in FE. It can only mean that 1) MSOR are equally qualified, which means they should've been MSFE students at the first place, or 2) MSFE courses can teach anyone. The exclusivity brings about the idea of a specialist program. If everyone can take it, you're really aren't that special even in your own school.
thanks for calling me out... you douche :p Actually, my impression of MSFE has gotten better with the newly available employment reports. With that said, I would appreciate more in-depth analysis...
My impression came from two sources.
1) Over a dinner conversation with a managing director of a major market maker, I was told that one year would simply be too short to learn QF (and that means you need to take MORE CLASSES, not DRAG ON YOUR SEMESTER TO FIT AN INTERNSHIP). The credit limit is mandated by the faculty senate and administrators, so the students are forced to select electives rather than learning all applicable aspects of FE as a general field. Markets, however, are intrinsically inter-connected. Your chosen electives' field might be completely gone when you graduate. Students' flexibility in choosing classes ironically limits their career options (imagine the surprise of those who specialized in structured finance during the subprime crisis only to find out THERE WAS NO DEMAND). In contrasts, CMU and NYU have fairly strict curricula and everyone takes the same classes. The faculty now must identify the core skills required for placement, so they limit their placement to a rather narrow field (S&T) where most of their graduates will end up. The more flexibility you have in a program, the less of a specialist program you seem to be because specialists don't get choices. You learn everything you're REQUIRED TO.
2) How much information schools divulge also shapes how they are perceived. Columbia students get a lot of job posting through their department-wide emails available to both undergrads and PhDs in OR, so they see a lot of non-quant opportunities. One of the most common complaints seem to be the lack of PERSONAL ASSISTANCE for placement (although the complaints came most often during the crisis, at which point there was nothing they could do). Understandably, people infer such inaction as a sign that the Columbia's staff are relying on the Columbia brand to promote their students. CMU, on the other hand, offers very clear idea to where all its alumni went. They have a very clear message about their program (we are computationally heavy), and their placement record speaks loud and clear about which industry they graduates excel in. Baruch has also done so with their placement record, and I think they definitely benefited significantly in terms of attracting top candidates with their openness.
Having sat in one of Columbia's classes before, I think the academic difference between two programs on a per course basis is marginal. With the exception of program length, most schools basically teach the same thing. But the MSFE brand is somewhat diluted with MSOR students who "specializes" in FE. It can only mean that 1) MSOR are equally qualified, which means they should've been MSFE students at the first place, or 2) MSFE courses can teach anyone. The exclusivity brings about the idea of a specialist program. If everyone can take it, you're really aren't that special even in your own school.