DISCUSSION on second rated MFE programs

[Carl]

The first tier programs


I think it makes a lot more sense to figure out "the first tier programs"

others are those who do not have good placement. if so it does not worth the $$$$$$. so simply avoid em. no need to learn more about them. if can not get into a first tier, do something else maybe is a better idea. this is similar to MBAs. anything 2nd tier or lower has much lower value than the first tier.

also, 2nd tier FE program can be derived from the list of first tier.

so, I'd suggest that we focus our energy on the first tiers, and stay away from sad stories/rumors etc.

I might be wrong though. But I am pretty positive on this.

I disagree with this. You appear to be looking at this from the viewpoint of someone who is attending or has graduated from a "1st tier" school. If so, your viewpoint represents a minority of all involved (the schools, other aspiring students, headhunters, and employers).

Take myself as an example. I am a recently married teacher, and am thus stuck in the metro area for a considerable amount of future time. I happen to want to change careers. If a program costs 40k (i.e. Fordham) but gets me a starting salary of 60k with raises that will average out to greater than 5% each year, then attending the lower tier program is a much better financial decision than sticking around as a teacher. In a matter of 5 years I will have more money than if I continued to teach.

Faced with this conclusion, I am more than willing to attend a non 1st tier school as long as I will receive a competent education. Of course I would prefer a 1st tier, but I am realistic. I do not think that "if can not get into a first tier, do something else," is a good idea.

Unfortunately, there is hardly any information concerning non 1st tier programs other than that found on the program's website (some which has been shown to be, at the least, very misleading).

It's great to know the good things about programs. It is also great to know the bad . This way, I can avoid making a horrible mistake.

 

[bigbadwolf]

I disagree with this. You appear to be looking at this from the viewpoint of someone who is attending or has graduated from a "1st tier" school. If so, your viewpoint represents a minority of all involved (the schools, other aspiring students, headhunters, and employers).

Take myself as an example. I am a recently married teacher, and am thus stuck in the metro area for a considerable amount of future time. I happen to want to change careers. If a program costs 40k (i.e. Fordham) but gets me a starting salary of 60k with raises that will average out to greater than 5% each year, then attending the lower tier program is a much better financial decision than sticking around as a teacher. In a matter of 5 years I will have more money than if I continued to teach.

Faced with this conclusion, I am more than willing to attend a non 1st tier school as long as I will receive a competent education. Of course I would prefer a 1st tier, but I am realistic. I do not think that “if can not get into a first tier, do something else,” is a good idea.

Unfortunately, there is hardly any information concerning non 1st tier programs other than that found on the program's website (some which has been shown to be, at the least, very misleading).

It's great to know the good things about programs. It is also great to know the bad . This way, I can avoid making a horrible mistake.

I agree with the general thrust of your response but there are a couple of issues here that need clarification. The first is that garbage programs may be orienting their students to jobs they have no realistic chance of snagging -- quant jobs at big firms. The skill set required for those jobs is different to those required for humbler positions. If they fill you up with stochastic calc, Monte Carlo, etc., you're being prepared for a quant role -- which you may not get because your school has a bad rep or you haven't been properly trained or there are simply too many applicants for a limited number of jobs; but you can't apply for MBA-type jobs because you haven't received a good overall finance education (I know MFE types who can't read financial statements, though that's a basic skill). Related to my previous point, the MFE has yet to catch on (but probably will in the fullness of time) as a competitor to the MBA not just in IBs, hedge funds, and financial boutiques, but across American business as a whole, as they understand the need for more quant-oriented people than what MBA programs may be churning out. And second-tier schools will have to learn how to cater to this growing market by providing people with a mix of quant, computing, and basic financial skills. This has yet to be done. And in my humble opinion, there's a latent market for this.

 

[DominiConnor]

If a program costs 40k (i.e. Fordham) but gets me a starting salary of 60k with raises that will average out to greater than 5% each year, then attending the lower tier program is a much better financial decision than sticking around as a teacher.

The question is whether you will get this job. Yes of course many jobs go to non-first tier (whatever that means), but that is not guaranteed, and you're 100% right that information on the less branded schools is sparse and unreliable. As a HH I do this crap for a living, and I struggle to get a reliable view, someone just googling is going to have it hard.
$40K on a teaching salary is a big lump of cash and 1-2 years is serious time so you have my sympathy.
Fordham is the first programme where I've received information that they are actually lying, but choosing anything based solely upon brochures is never going to work out well. They are sales pitches for high priced products. A Rolex ad does not say "Our watches are pretty good, but not for you if you want a digital display, or are allergic to the alloy we use, also some people find them a bit thick". They have some sports dude implying that if you wear one, you will be mistaken for Tiger Woods and David Beckham. Fordham uses Descartes and James Joyce. Same idea.

The other problem for both me as a HH, and people trying to make good choices, is that as one moves "down tier", the number of programs goes up rapidly. There are some programmes that I literally have no data at all.

 

[israelrt]

Thus Oxford, for example, bases its admission primarily on an interview. I personally know of cases where they've made offers asking for only two "E" grades at GCE "A" levels .

That is a serious misunderstanding of Oxford's admissions process. Oxford's admission tutors are extremely interested in marks. ECs, leadership and personal qualities are completely irrelevant to the process ( unless your EC is that you were on the International Maths Olympiad team ). As the parent of one student at Oxford, and another who is applying to Oxford and the Ivies ( as a safety since Oxford is so ferociously hard to get into ), I can assure you that Oxford are far more obsessed by academic excellence than the Ivies.

Americans who apply to Oxford are expected to have AT LEAST mid 700s in all 3 parts of the SATs ( ie : score of 1500 CR + M or 2250 CR+ M + W ), plus 3 SAT Subjects tests in the high 700s, plus 4 APs with a score of 5 each. This is just for starters. In addition, the results of the course specific standardised entrance tests run by Oxford are extremely important. These include the LNAT, HAT and the STEP for law, history and mathematics respectively. In the case of UK applicants, they look at marks starting from the year 10 GCSE grade, the "predicted" A levels ( since the students apply before they have their final A level results ).The predicted A level score needs to be at least AAA for the candidate to even be considered. AAAAA is common and AAAAAAA is not unknown

IF you score extremely well on the academic sections, you are called to an interview that is technical/brainteaser based.
If you do well at the interview, you are placed on a short list of candidates who are compteting for the limited places in each subject. If you are one of the best, once marks and the interview are considered, you are offered a conditional acceptance which is usually based on you achieving a AAA on the A levels. If you fail to meet the conditional score, you dont get in.

If the admissions tutors ( ie: the actual professors who teach you the subject when you arrive there ) think that you are amazingly brilliant, they may ( very rarely ) offer you a EE as a condition of acceptance. This is merely meant to signal that they really, really want you and think that you are nearly genius level. The kids who are offered EE, normally get AAAA since they are usually the most academically proficient of the entire applicant cohort.

Realistically, unless you are atleast at the 98th percentile level, applying to Oxford is a waste of time. In fact, their admission web site is quite open about this, saying that they are looking for applications from people in the top 2% or better of their cohort.

 

[Poirot]

"Fordham uses Descartes and James Joyce."

I fail to spot the connection between Fordham and these two fine gents.
AFAIK, Descartes was a frenchman and Joyce, although born in Ireland, lived all over Europe (including France).

 

[Feng]

Which program should I choose?

I am an international student. I have got admission from MSCF@CMU, MSFM@U Chicago, MFE@U Mich, and potentially from MFE@Columbia

Can any one give some comments and perspectives on these programs? Especially regarding job opportunities for international students in these programs, and also other important aspects. Thank you very much!

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Of the four, CMU has been upfront with its internship and placement data while the other 3 provides nothing.
Words I heard is that MFE@Columbia is really bad with its placement this year. Only 15 of the 67 or so graduates has found jobs due to its large class size, terrible market condition, foul weather, bad feng shui, etc...
UMich is a big school but not exactly at the center of a financial center.
UChicago, I have no data point to say anything either way.

If I were you, I would call up UChicago, ask about their current placement scene and then make a choice between CMU and UChicago. One is expensive with good placement and location. The other is less expensive and potentially good placement and second best location.

Talk to the headhunters around here (Dominic, Todd Fahey, Eric, etc). They know the market better than I do.

 

[DominiConnor]

You are not alone in not seeing how Fordham can claim credit for these people. As I say, it;s like the way Rolex would like you to believe that a $10K watch will make you a great sportsman.
Fordham goes further, and to quote their website:
At Fordham, you will experience the same Jesuit approach to education that has challenged some of the world's greatest thinkers for more than 400 years. Jesuit educated notables have included Descartes, Molière, Alfred Hitchcock, Sting, James Joyce, Dee Dee Myers, and Captain Kangaroo.

Descartes and Moliere are French with no connection to Fordham which did not exist at the time. Alfred Hitchcock's connection to Fordham is that for a while he worked on the same continent, and it is possible that he flew over it once. As it happens I'm sitting near where he was educated, in England, thousands of miles from Fordham.
Sting is a Buddhist, educated in England, not sure what that has to do with a promoting a US Jesuit college.
Dee Dee Myers has a much closer connection to Fordham than any of the others, since she was actually educated in America, albeit in a college as far away as possible from Fordham as one can be in the lower 48 states.

James Joyce was Irish, again with no connection. He did however get some Jesuit education (a little more than me), however he was kicked out as a child because his parents could not afford the fees. Fees are of course a sore point with Fordham since they've agreed to reimburse students after running a student loan scam, after criminal investigation.

I don't know what's going on at Fordham, and until someone complained to me, I didn't really care, but it does not look good.

 

[Feng]

Thank you very much for your advice, Andy. I will call U Chicago

I know that MSCF@CMU has very good reputation in the street. Yet many other factors makes me feel that it's not perfect. I know there's no reason to ask for perfectness at any time, but I think you can understand this because I am going to pay a large amount of money for that.

The first reason for me to vacilate is the overall reputation for the name of CMU. Outside USA, almost no one have heared of it. (Since I am a computer major student, I know CMU well though) I think this will have some long-term effect if some day I am getting back to China.

I applied to Pittsburg campus of CMU, so regarding the location I think U Chicago is better.

Though the director of MSCF@CMU told me that placement of last class was "much better than they had expected", I also heard that only 1 student in this year's NY class has got job offer in NY, many Asian students have to get back to Hong Kong (I cannot be sure about the accuracy of this information). Also a current student at CMU's program told me that it's not a good time to go to US for a MFE program. So I am kind of worried about the job market.

It seems that there have always been a lot of disputes over Columbia's MFE program. Do you know that the bad placement record of Columbia is only for this year, or it has never performed very well in the past? At least placement record of CMU this year is also much worse than those in past years, though I have no solid statistics yet.

 

[bigbadwolf]

If the admissions tutors ( ie: the actual professors who teach you the subject when you arrive there ) think that you are amazingly brilliant, they may ( very rarely ) offer you a EE as a condition of acceptance. This is merely meant to signal that they really, really want you and think that you are nearly genius level. The kids who are offered EE, normally get AAAA since they are usually the most academically proficient of the entire applicant cohort.

I don't dispute the rest of your post so have snipped it out. What I've underlined above is the only point I''m trying to make: I'm not aware of any such procedures among the US Ivies. I'm aware of two people who got into Oxford on the basis of having to get only EE. In both cases, if memory serves, they got AAAA. The question is why were they given EE offers -- instead of AAAA. I argue because the admission tutors were cognisant that mathematically talented youngsters might not perform that well in standard tests (such as "A" level). And hence that results of such tests might not be a reliable "filter."

In passing, I also had a friend who *only* achieved AAA, didn't do too well at interview, but since he had already done a year at Birkbeck (London U), was admitted. But this is going back twenty years. And Oxford's admission procedures have possibly become more standardised since then. Yet I wonder. There are record numbers of British youngsters achieving the highest letter grade at "A" levels, and there's a growing recognition that the exam no longer serves it purpose of distinguishing the wheat from the chaff.

With regard to foreign applicants, they doubtless use more stringent and explicit criteria. As I seem to recall, Cambridge -- the real jewel in the crown of scientific education in the UK -- does make offers based on "A" level performance -- usually AAAA, I think (and some of their entrants achieve AAAAA).

Postscript: You're making admission to Oxford out to be more intimidating than it really is, though the figures you cite cannot be argued with. If you have real mathematical talent, either Oxford or Cambridge will admit you as a math undergrad, as that's all they're really looking for. Unlike the US Ivies, who seem to have moving goalposts, and seldom make explicit what mix of qualities they're looking for (and in which academic potential seems to be only one ingredient).

 

[alain]

(OFFTOPIC) Pardon my ignorance, but what is this A, AA, AAA, AAAAA business? My experience is very limited since I came from Cuba. I only know the Cuban and the American system... and BTW, the cuban system is extremely simple but very efficient. You get into college/university base on a test. If you don't do well on it, tough luck. Harsh but it works somehow.... and after you are in, it is survival of the fittest because the professors make your life a living hell for the first couple of years to "filter" people out... Ah, if you failed, you are out, plain and simple... at any level.

 

[Sachin]

Contrast the Oxford thing with the Indian system (like Cuba).For entrance to any school..be it for engineering or medicine..there are exams which are held once a year.For Indian Institutes of Technology or the Indian Institutes of Management ,approx 2.5 lac students appear for 2000 odd seats.If you make that exam , you are in else you can't do anything even if you are the son of the President. So , you'll see a lot of students topping their Class 12th exam but coming a cropper in the entrance examinations.Of course there are both pros and cons to it...there is not an iota of nepotism but then again only one exam decides your furture and if you have one bad day , you can not make it.For medicine students it's even tougher where for 25 odd seats in AIIMS (All India Inst. of Medical Sciences) over 2 lac students appear.

 

[bobbychopra]

If you could also post your finding about the UChicago placement rate and your discussions with other universities, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance!

 

[bigbadwolf]

(OFFTOPIC) Pardon my ignorance, but what is this A, AA, AAA, AAAAA business?

"A" means one A grade (e.g. mathematics) at GCSE advanced level; "AA" means two A grades (e.g. math and physics); "AAAAA" means five A grades (e.g. math, further math, physics, chemistry, biology). Since English degrees typically concentrate on one subject (e.g. math, physics, or biology), I don't see the logic of taking so many subjects.

 

[Feng]

Well, I am very glad to share the information.

From whom I talked to at U Chicago (someone in the admission office), their last year's placement rate was near 100%. And according to her words, this year's placement seems even better than last year. Most job offers are within US (this is what I concern because I am an international student). They have also got 2 professors now in charge of their student's career service. They will invite employers to the school. They do not have graduates first year salary statistics.

That's nearly all I got from the phone call.

 

[Abhishek Najbile]

I have a high regard for Chicago's proactive work in helping their students find jobs.
Can't help with placement statistics, since of course this is not something headhunters see.

On the subject of returning to China, my feeling is that CMU & Chicago have the beter international visibility, though I cannot be 100% about China.

But what will be more important is the brand of your employers, especially if you are uncertain about when you will return. Unless a firm is big internationally, you will find that it's brand drops hard once you go for jobs outside the USA.

 

[Feng]

But still CMU's career service is stronger?

I have a high regard for Chicago's proactive work in helping their students find jobs.
Can't help with placement statistics, since of course this is not something headhunters see.

On the subject of returning to China, my feeling is that CMU & Chicago have the beter international visibility, though I cannot be 100% about China.

But what will be more important is the brand of your employers, especially if you are uncertain about when you will return. Unless a firm is big internationally, you will find that it's brand drops hard once you go for jobs outside the USA.

 

[DominiConnor]

International qualifications are an issue at masters level.
The vast majority of people do their first degree in their home country, and it's quite clear from where I sit that there is a wide variety of optimality of the selection processes.

But there is no real standard for what a MFE program will accept, and the quality of first degrees varies globally, as does the level of corruption in the process. India has done a first rate job in making its IIT degrees an internationally valued standard. Chinese students are faced with the problem that so many of the people interviewing them have previously met ROC graduates who clearly had their degree bought for them by their parents, or some other unclean means. We note that an increasing number HK students often go to some pains to point out that none of their qualifications come from the PRC.

Fordham may be the worst case in the West of money going to the heads of people running finance programmes, but it is no alone. We get feedback of courses where 50% drop out after they have paid their money. It's hard to confirm this exactly, since no MFE programme publishes its drop out rate, and the people who end up talking to P&D are those who got out the other side, so our sample is hopelessly biased.

 

[bobbychopra]

Sorry to bring this up, but I think you are unaware about the UChicago program being extended to Singapore. Information is still trickling in. I am trying to gather as much information as I can.

Singapore Program
http://finmath.uchicago.edu/new/msfm/news/press_02-5-08.php

The university conducted a survey a couple of weeks ago

If you would consider Singapore as your study location, we would like to know the deciding factors....(choose all that apply)
a) Choosing Singapore allows me to continue working and study part-time
b) Choosing Singapore will allow me to study with less financial burden
c) Singapore is closer to my home and family
d) Choosing Singapore will provide me with the opportunity to explore a different culture and new financial networks
e) Other (please explain)

My impression is that the university will soon have some sort of career center for focusing on opportunities in South East Asia and in South Asia. It also wants to attract candidates to the new program location.

Maybe in a year or so, the Singapore program would a whole lot of opportunities to offer in that region.

 

[DominiConnor]

Sadly I have yet to talk with an alumnus of the IIT Stuart programme.
But the description looks good.
I think it is unique amongst finance programmes in that it may require you to do a basic C++ course before you start. Many programmes like Fordham claim they can turn out skilled MFEs where no C++ happens at all
They say they use Ansi C++, which is good, but elsewhere I have heard they use use C++/CLI which I'm less happy about, simply because it is not C++, and will cause their students to fail to answer many interview questions. Also C++/CLI is almost unknown in professional finance, so much so that interviewers will ask C++ questions and be disappointed by the blank looks.

They also require students to do VB.NEt which is more than a little bit odd, and more MS-centric than is healthy. But my gripe with that is mostly that a quant needs more maths than he needs VB.NET.
It's extremely hard to tell simply from the course outline whether the maths content is advanced or relevant. "Computational Finance III" I suspect is more advanced than "Computational Finance II", but that's as far as it goes.