If I do the CQF, will that gime a good background for the Baruch MFE? I have no programming (a C course a few years back) experience and the certificate has a c++ course. What do you think?
CQF a good background?
- Thread starter mlawski
- Start date
what do you mean???
I am not sure if I understand what you are getting at. I want to get into the program to change careers and get into a quant role. Baruch is my only real choice, the only other option is CMU. I am not interested in NYU, Columbia, Fordham, Rutgers, or Stevens.
So does anyone think the CQF is a good prep for the Baruch MFE, any comments, suggestions will be appreciated.
I am not sure if I understand what you are getting at. I want to get into the program to change careers and get into a quant role. Baruch is my only real choice, the only other option is CMU. I am not interested in NYU, Columbia, Fordham, Rutgers, or Stevens.
So does anyone think the CQF is a good prep for the Baruch MFE, any comments, suggestions will be appreciated.
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,165
- Points
- 273
Some people take CQF as an alternative choice for a real MFE so while it's true that you will learn a bunch of stuff in CQF, I don't think it's economically sensible to do CQF and then an MFE.
While the CQF may give you an edge to get into Baruch MFE, you have to think about the time and money invested.
Without knowing much about your background, it's impossible to see what is the best path for your preparation to Baruch MFE.
While the CQF may give you an edge to get into Baruch MFE, you have to think about the time and money invested.
Without knowing much about your background, it's impossible to see what is the best path for your preparation to Baruch MFE.
I dont see the CQF as a substitute to the MFE, since the most important aspect of the entire masters is the job placement which is almost 100% for Baruch (and CMU). It will also be a career change for me though I work in finance in a non-quant job.
Economically is not that big a deal, since Baruch education is such a bargain, and combined it is only $25K or so.
Economically is not that big a deal, since Baruch education is such a bargain, and combined it is only $25K or so.
alain
Older and Wiser
- Joined
- 3/29/04
- Messages
- 2,767
- Points
- 93
If you are planning to do the masters for the Job placement, you are setting yourself for failure. Job placement is 100% now but it might drop in the future. It is not a sure thing. We have been very successful so far but it could change in the future.
I plan to do the masters to go into a field where I have a great deal of interest. And the reason we get advanced professional degrees is so that we may find the work that we want to do. Why in the heck would I want to go to a school that has a 70% placement rate vs another that has a 100%? This tells me 2 things, 1) that the managers of the program understand the needs of the students 2) they provide potential employers with qualified individuals. So placement is key.
It is my impression that Prof. Stefano and his team are dedicated to the program, and that the program continues to gain in reputation, so given the information I have, it is a good choice.
It is my impression that Prof. Stefano and his team are dedicated to the program, and that the program continues to gain in reputation, so given the information I have, it is a good choice.
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,165
- Points
- 273
It is my impression that Prof. Stefano and his team are dedicated to the program, and that the program continues to gain in reputation.
While I don't disagree with most of your point, my impression is that the director is Prof. Stefanica.
I think the point Alain trying to make is that don't count on the 100% placement as the sole deciding factor when choosing a program. A good program will always have good placement record and 100% is an amazing number. Some programs will never publish its placement numbers for whatever reason.
When you are good and work hard, you will always get a good job. Just don't use the Baruch 100% placement rate as an excuse for complacence.
Goodluck with your application.
While I don't disagree with most of your point, my impression is that the director is Prof. Stefanica.
I think the point Alain trying to make is that don't count on the 100% placement as the sole deciding factor when choosing a program. A good program will always have good placement record and 100% is an amazing number. Some programs will never publish its placement numbers for whatever reason.
When you are good and work hard, you will always get a good job. Just don't use the Baruch 100% placement rate as an excuse for complacence.
Goodluck with your application.
- Joined
- 2/7/08
- Messages
- 3,261
- Points
- 123
What Alain is saying is that a high placement percentage is not a foregone conclusion just because past statistics have been good. The program may be as strong as it was in previous years, and the efforts of the program director and his staff as assiduous in trying to obtain placements -- but the job market may have changed radically. Look at Baruch: it is now advertising 95% and $95K average starting; last year it was 100% and $100K average starting. The market isn't the same, and this is beyond the control of the program director.
In general, though, your argument is sound: aim for a school with relatively high placement. I'm aware of bum "programs" out there that I doubt have even 30% placement; indeed they may not even have a placement strategy. In general, any prospective student should ask hard questions about placement (and the terms and conditions of such). Any attempt by the program director or his staff to fudge the issue should be enough to convince one that the people behind the program are a bunch of worthless bums.
I think we all understand that the strength/weakness of the job market is of primary importance, but to me a 85%+ placement is the point, not whether this year is 95% vs 100% last year. I have also done some homework on the local programs and I see a great deal of difference between the Baruch and the CMU programs, and the rest. In fact, NYU treats it part time and full time students differently, Columbia is a mill as some other threads have noted. My research shows that quality shows in the placement rates of both schools.
So back to the CQF questions, is this good as a prep/background for the Baruch program?
So back to the CQF questions, is this good as a prep/background for the Baruch program?
It is very difficult to do the difference between and the others. For me the more important in the market place is to be good, good, to be a very good pratician even if your school doesnt place you. That CQF is one of the best courses which gives to students a good level and it is easily accesible. Wilmott and dminic and others have to develop the a placement service in CQF, that will help student who times have lot of problem on getting an entry level job in quant or trading position.
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,165
- Points
- 273
As far as I know, the final placement for 2007 is 100%. Baruch has always used a 3-month after graduation time mark to calculate the placement rate. 95% was the rate at that 3-month mark and went up to 100% shortly afterward. They may as well use 100% on their ads but I believe they have been always very transparent with their numbers. Whatever the numbers turn out to be, they would put it up there without reservation.
- Joined
- 6/5/07
- Messages
- 348
- Points
- 26
I looked at the CQF some time ago. I bought "Paul Wilmott Introduces Quantitative Finance." I talked to a finance professor, not affiliated with the MFE, about the CQF.
I came away with the impression that the CQF is more of a survey, and that is how I found Wilmott's book to be, as well. It was unsatisfactory when I bought it, although it's gained some value as a reference and clearly the more I learn about FE, the more useful it becomes in that regard. But to learn the art of FE from it is a tortuous proposition.
The professor put it to me this way (paraphrasing): "It [the CQF] might make you more of a mechanic. Do you want to be that or an architect?"
When Wilmott says over and over, as he does, "you don't need that much math to do this," that indicates what his approach is and who he sees as his audience. A mechanic needn't know much math to build something; his intuition can be his strongest skill. But if you really want to understand the rationale behind the assumptions, the guts of the product, you can't take math lightly. The more you know, the more ability you will have to be creative with it. And so, if the CQF skims math, it can only take you so far into the heart of the material.
The world needs mechanics and architects. And some mechanics become architects, and vice versa. As Andy pointed out, time and money are factors.
In the marketplace for finance professionals, any demonstrable grasp of the quant approach, I would think, is an asset.
I came away with the impression that the CQF is more of a survey, and that is how I found Wilmott's book to be, as well. It was unsatisfactory when I bought it, although it's gained some value as a reference and clearly the more I learn about FE, the more useful it becomes in that regard. But to learn the art of FE from it is a tortuous proposition.
The professor put it to me this way (paraphrasing): "It [the CQF] might make you more of a mechanic. Do you want to be that or an architect?"
When Wilmott says over and over, as he does, "you don't need that much math to do this," that indicates what his approach is and who he sees as his audience. A mechanic needn't know much math to build something; his intuition can be his strongest skill. But if you really want to understand the rationale behind the assumptions, the guts of the product, you can't take math lightly. The more you know, the more ability you will have to be creative with it. And so, if the CQF skims math, it can only take you so far into the heart of the material.
The world needs mechanics and architects. And some mechanics become architects, and vice versa. As Andy pointed out, time and money are factors.
In the marketplace for finance professionals, any demonstrable grasp of the quant approach, I would think, is an asset.
DominiConnor
Quant Headhunter
- Joined
- 9/6/06
- Messages
- 1,051
- Points
- 93
Paul Wilmott Introduces Quantitative Finance is exactly what it says on the label.
It addresses much the same ideas as Hull's book to much the same audience.
As both a CQF Alumnus and a lecturer on the course I have to say that the CQF is vastly more than PWIQF. I jokingly refer to Paul Wilmott's "Big Book of Banking" in various posts and that is a three volume epic text. (In the film of the book, I'm played by Colin Firth, Paul is played by Hugh Grant).
That's called Paul Wilmott On Quantitative Finance.
Amazon.com: Paul Wilmott on Quantitative Finance 3 Volume Set (2nd Edition): Paul Wilmott: Books
Amazon.com: Paul Wilmott Introduces Quantitative Finance: Paul Wilmott: Books
There is piles of stuff not in PWIQF or PWOQF. I go on about C++ until you lose the will to live, and there's a list of people much more eminent than who cover a wide range of finance topics.
Is it enough to make you a quant ?
I like to think people know me well enough to expect that I give straight answers to questions. (Even if I ask them myself).
I'm on the record as saying no course anywhere will make you a quant. Quant finance is a practical discipline. You ain't a quant until you've caused serious financial harm to a bank
I think the building analogy is not quite what I would use.
Almost all students of finance are coming from different backgrounds, sometimes very different. On one quite well known MFE, there is a middle aged academic dentist.
So it's foreign to most of us when we start. The goal of a good MFE/CQF/MathFin/MathTrading or Extreme Accountancy course is thus most similar to language training.
Learning French does not make you a French citizen.
I might be tempted to characterise an MFE as getting you up to speed on French poetry.
The CQF is more for picking up attractive French people in bars.
I have quite carefully not said the CQF is right for you. I simply don't know because I don't know you. I would counsel you to look at the CQF, come to an open evening, an compare what it offers to you personally compared to an MFE.
If you want more personalised advice, I am not that hard to find.
It addresses much the same ideas as Hull's book to much the same audience.
As both a CQF Alumnus and a lecturer on the course I have to say that the CQF is vastly more than PWIQF. I jokingly refer to Paul Wilmott's "Big Book of Banking" in various posts and that is a three volume epic text. (In the film of the book, I'm played by Colin Firth, Paul is played by Hugh Grant).
That's called Paul Wilmott On Quantitative Finance.
Amazon.com: Paul Wilmott on Quantitative Finance 3 Volume Set (2nd Edition): Paul Wilmott: Books
Amazon.com: Paul Wilmott Introduces Quantitative Finance: Paul Wilmott: Books
There is piles of stuff not in PWIQF or PWOQF. I go on about C++ until you lose the will to live, and there's a list of people much more eminent than who cover a wide range of finance topics.
Is it enough to make you a quant ?
I like to think people know me well enough to expect that I give straight answers to questions. (Even if I ask them myself).
I'm on the record as saying no course anywhere will make you a quant. Quant finance is a practical discipline. You ain't a quant until you've caused serious financial harm to a bank
I think the building analogy is not quite what I would use.
Almost all students of finance are coming from different backgrounds, sometimes very different. On one quite well known MFE, there is a middle aged academic dentist.
So it's foreign to most of us when we start. The goal of a good MFE/CQF/MathFin/MathTrading or Extreme Accountancy course is thus most similar to language training.
Learning French does not make you a French citizen.
I might be tempted to characterise an MFE as getting you up to speed on French poetry.
The CQF is more for picking up attractive French people in bars.
I have quite carefully not said the CQF is right for you. I simply don't know because I don't know you. I would counsel you to look at the CQF, come to an open evening, an compare what it offers to you personally compared to an MFE.
If you want more personalised advice, I am not that hard to find.
- Joined
- 6/5/07
- Messages
- 348
- Points
- 26
Yeah, but I learned something from Hull.
In the terms you use, it seems that you have a better shot doing great harm to a financial institution as an MFE than as a CQF. An MFE is more likely to be charged with coming up with an infrastructure that puts capital at risk, at least at a bank or a top quant fund.
Down the ladder a bit, at a regional bank or fund that isn't as discerning, I suppose a CQF could indeed wreak some havoc. Maybe even at an emerging market...
But it's just an educated guess. On this I'd definitely have to defer to your professional judgment.
What I was getting at, but never quite got to, was that Wilmott seems eager to downplay the role of mathematics (even as he clearly seems quite at ease with it himself) -- and I definitely got the impression that was to attract those with some math insecurity to the CQF. But given that the first name of the field is "Quantitative," I think that approach is fundamentally lacking.
To introduce yet another (and I promise, my last, or nearly my last) analogy, you don't really need to "know" music to play an instrument, in the theoretical or "book learnin" sense. You don't need to be able to read or write in order to speak. But the better you can do any of it, the more facility you will have for the task, the better able you will be to express your intuitions and contribute creatively to the task at hand.
...or the more damage you could do... /sarcasm
In the terms you use, it seems that you have a better shot doing great harm to a financial institution as an MFE than as a CQF. An MFE is more likely to be charged with coming up with an infrastructure that puts capital at risk, at least at a bank or a top quant fund.
Down the ladder a bit, at a regional bank or fund that isn't as discerning, I suppose a CQF could indeed wreak some havoc. Maybe even at an emerging market...
But it's just an educated guess. On this I'd definitely have to defer to your professional judgment.
What I was getting at, but never quite got to, was that Wilmott seems eager to downplay the role of mathematics (even as he clearly seems quite at ease with it himself) -- and I definitely got the impression that was to attract those with some math insecurity to the CQF. But given that the first name of the field is "Quantitative," I think that approach is fundamentally lacking.
To introduce yet another (and I promise, my last, or nearly my last) analogy, you don't really need to "know" music to play an instrument, in the theoretical or "book learnin" sense. You don't need to be able to read or write in order to speak. But the better you can do any of it, the more facility you will have for the task, the better able you will be to express your intuitions and contribute creatively to the task at hand.
...or the more damage you could do... /sarcasm
Nice way to promote Baruch.
Similar threads
