Dark Secrets of 'Prestigious' Programs: Caveat Emptor

[Jojo]

I apologize for my post above...with no credible information, I should nt have posted any link...

 

[Ilya W]

Agreed with Dominic and bigbadwolf. By the way his way of writing reminds me our old friend Leroy

 

[euroazn]

Despite the feeling that this is a troll post, I want to figure this out.

A much ‘respected’ program [particularly ‘respected’ by O.P. with name starting with Ily, who most know about on this forum]

That program sent admission letters last year to applicants for its Master of Engineering in Quantitative Finance program scheduled to begin last Fall.

What program has an Engineering degree, as opposed to an MS?

Ily is probably one of the Ilya's, not sure which one.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

How to get your reputation destroyed overnight and forever labelled troll: this is an art mastered by the selected few.
Note to self: when you feel the urge to response to a thread, remind yourself that you may feel the troll and in the process look foolish.

 

[sprinkles]

Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a second.

First, from the link Andy posted: The content of a "troll posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup, or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings."

The O.P., if he were trying to do any of these things, would make far more outrageous comments. He in fact brought up a lot of issues which anyone who reads Quantnet regularly will recognize as at least partially based in reality.

People need to keep an open mind about these things. Too many of us are too ready to dismiss someone as a "troll" without stopping to think about what his true motives might be. I agree he could have been far clearer in his statements, but maybe he has a very good reason for being vague? Admittedly I can't see a good reason, but maybe he can come out and tell us why he's being so secretive?

There's a huge difference between "girls at UIUC are easy" and what this guy wrote. The first was clearly trolling, while this guy seems to have something legitimate to say.

People just seem too ready to label someone a troll as soon as they deviate a little bit from the norm. But not everything that's different is wrong.

Leroy was different yet he (they?) said a lot of very accurate things about the Baruch program. Still he was dismissed as a troll. That seems a bit fanatic, in my opinion.

I think more of us need to be a bit more skeptical.

If you're going to joint any of these programs and pay good money for it, you have every right to know what you're getting yourself into.

 

[rajanS]

Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a second.

First, from the link Andy posted: The content of a "troll posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup, or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings."

The O.P., if he were trying to do any of these things, would make far more outrageous comments. He in fact brought up a lot of issues which anyone who reads Quantnet regularly will recognize as at least partially based in reality.

People need to keep an open mind about these things. Too many of us are too ready to dismiss someone as a "troll" without stopping to think about what his true motives might be. I agree he could have been far clearer in his statements, but maybe he has a very good reason for being vague? Admittedly I can't see a good reason, but maybe he can come out and tell us why he's being so secretive?

There's a huge difference between "girls at UIUC are easy" and what this guy wrote. The first was clearly trolling, while this guy seems to have something legitimate to say.

People just seem too ready to label someone a troll as soon as they deviate a little bit from the norm. But not everything that's different is wrong.

Leroy was different yet he (they?) said a lot of very accurate things about the Baruch program. Still he was dismissed as a troll. That seems a bit fanatic, in my opinion.

I think more of us need to be a bit more skeptical.

its funny that from looking at your profile page, you are a member since "today". you haven't commented anywhere in this website except here. yet you know so much about past trolls...you are more than likely the same person, just signing up in different names. sprinkles? you can do better than that. second of all, yes this is a news group...so we would like to get direct statements. not hints. what is the point of hinting? it makes no sense. no one has time to figure that crap out.

 

[sprinkles]

its funny that from looking at your profile page, you are a member since "today". you haven't commented anywhere in this website except here. yet you know so much about past trolls...you are more than likely the same person, just signing up in different names. sprinkles? you can do better than that. second of all, yes this is a news group...so we would like to get direct statements. not hints. what is the point of hinting? it makes no sense. no one has time to figure that crap out.

I'm not trying to do better than that

Clearly my words fell on deaf ears.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

you are more than likely the same person, just signing up in different names. sprinkles?

Correct. This account is duplicated by one existing member.
I'm fed up with people creating multiple accounts and have little respect for an environment of accountability that we have here. Very soon, I will have no choice but unmask these people and let them deal with the fallout. I have no mercy nor time for this hide and seek game.

 

[sprinkles]

well i am certainly not the OP. that's a fact.

 

[sprinkles]

also, to address this issue with people creating duplicate accounts:

it's the only way people can express ideas like this without being ostracized.

it clearly violates freedom of speech, but it's the sad reality of the situation.

 

[euroazn]

Correct. This account is duplicated by one existing member.
I'm fed up with people creating multiple accounts and have little respect for an environment of accountability that we have here. Very soon, I will have no choice but unmask these people and let them deal with the fallout. I have no mercy nor time for this hide and seek game.

I myself only know of one duplicated account and that member uses it for privacy reasons, which I feel is acceptable. Have people constantly been abusing multiple identities? News to me :\

Of course, if they use proxies, we'd never even know...

 

[Andy Nguyen]

well i am certainly not the OP. that's a fact.

Don't you think you should email me and finish our conversation before it's too late?

I myself only know of one duplicated account and that member uses it for privacy reasons, which I feel is acceptable. Have people constantly been abusing multiple identities? News to me :\

How is that acceptable? It's a clear violation of TOS and frown upon by every services provider.
It's one thing that they can't detect it. It's another thing if they can detect but do nothing about it. There are security risks involved as well.

You don't get to undo your mistake online, just like in real life. If you have the guts to criticize someone/something, you need the guts to be responsible, accountable for everything you said. The medium (online forum) does not excuse you from it.

The old saying goes: "Think twice before you speak/post".

 

[sprinkles]

Don't you think you should email me and finish our conversation before it's too late?

Too late for what? The purpose of a forum is to allow free speech, short of harassing people. No one is being harassed here as far as I can tell. And my purpose in posting is merely to point out that people should keep more of an open mind. I'm not even taking a side here, and even if I were taking the OP's side, that doesn't warrant revealing my identity either.

Now if people on this forum are going to be ostracized if they speak freely under their own name, then it's only fair that they also be allowed to express their ideas under a pseudonym.

 

[sprinkles]

A while ago when an industry practitioner wrote an article about the incoming cohort of financial engineers, his identity remained secret. I don't recall the exact name of the thread or I'd post it here. Though the topic was different, still a lot of things that wouldn't sit well with many people were said (as is happening now), and the writer wished to remain anonymous lest his firm be associated with his opinions. That same right to keep an identity secret on the Internet extends to all of us.

 

[joel_b]

He was talking about graduates of a type of programs, and the state of the industry. It was balanced as well. You're trying to say something about specific institutions and the quality of them with no support and going about it in the most vague way possible.

Big difference in subject here, and delivery, I don't see them as comparable. No different from the 'un-named source' that provides the national enquirer's daily copy that no one puts any stock in.

Sure you can have an expectation of privacy, just don't expect everyone to respect your opinion/evidence because of it.

 

[sprinkles]

He was talking about graduates of a type of programs, and the state of the industry. It was balanced as well. You're trying to say something about specific institutions and the quality of them with no support and going about it in the most vague way possible.

Big difference in subject here, and delivery, I don't see them as comparable. No different from the 'un-named source' that provides the national enquirer's daily copy that no one puts any stock in.

Sure you can have an expectation of privacy, just don't expect everyone to respect your opinion/evidence because of it.

Why are you saying "you"? As I said, I'm not the OP nor am I associated in any way with him. I was just arguing for free speech and skepticism.

 

[joel_b]

fine, he. My comment still applies as him trying to anonymously make serious claims on a site that is looking for frank evaluation of MFE programs and quant career prospects, and you trying to apply it to an article about the MFE job market.

edit: And further to that free speech is fine but his claims are so vague, when does speech become incomprehensible babble? This is why people become concerned that it may be invalid.

 

[sprinkles]

I was not actually arguing against any similarity between the two posts. I was only arguing for Internet privacy and right of anonymity.

 

[joel_b]

That's the secondary issue, and is only an effect of the cause: Someone making a bunch of claims indirectly with no justification. If it's true provide real factual information so people can be better informed. Otherwise you appear to be a troll and where the need to identify the person come up. We wouldn't care who it was if a bunch of factual documented info came with it. That's the wikileaks model for example : you post it up, and people will apply their BS-meter to it.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

One thing people need to keep in mind is that as a source of news in FE, Quantnet needs to verify its anonymous sources. It's one thing to have someone we know personally penned an anonymous article. It's another thing to have someone on the forum to claim things about program X/Y.

If I want people to trust Quantnet, I can't let everything we post looks like a bunch of foul mouthed, unhappy folks ranting off. I have to be accountable for what is online here. To do that, I need to know and trust my sources.

1) We need to verify the identity of the sources before we can use it. In most cases, we need several sources who can verify the same claims before we can use it.
2) When we feel there are enough materials for a story, we will proceed
3) We give the accused a chance to tell their story.

http://www.quantnet.com/chicago-msfm-fired-founding-director/
http://www.quantnet.com/rutgers-launch-third-quant-master-program/

So things like "Leroy" and this discussion do not help what their OP set out to do at all. People have to know that Quantnet/myself are their allies, not enemies. We are just as or more passionate than they are about bring transparency to the MFE scene.

We have plenty of MFE reviews that shock people and I'm surprised that we haven't heard more of these from every program.
http://www.quantnet.com/review-berkeley-mfe-program/
http://www.quantnet.com/review-chicago-msfm-program/

By posting a thread on the forum, they invite all sort of criticism, some deserved. When Quantnet/I can't tell who you are and get you to provide your claims, chance are the rest of the forum will see you as a troll.

I hope this long winded response will highlight some important points: we are your allies, and you need to contact Quantnet to get your tips/stories out instead of throwing accusatory notes on a thread like this.
If you want complete privacy, you send us an email/contact us and we will work with you. Ranting on forum is not helping you, us or anyone at all.