DISCUSSION on second rated MFE programs

[bigbadwolf]

Princeton has 100% placement record, too:
Princeton University | Bendheim Center for Finance

While no salary details are given, I have no reason to doubt it.

Seems to be more finance than financial engineering, and it appears possible to get by without having done any programming whatsoever. Even with the (elective) programming modules, the programming language isn't mentioned.

 

[joe_bradley]

What, no off-topic c++ rantings? Awwwwwww... :smt019

Ok. Andy has a good point about placement. However, I can point out that placement records can be unobjective or even fudged for something like an MFE. If a school has 100% placement, does that mean everyone got a quant related job? Or merely a job in finance? I've heard complaints on job boards from graduates of schools known to have 100% placement, saying that a lot of the graduates are underemployed. On the other hand, from a director's perspective, if you only count quant-related jobs, what about student takes a job in IT because they found it easier and more lucrative in the immediate term, even though the program director knows they could get a quant-related job? Why should that count against the program? etc.

 

[Sachin]

Princeton has 100% placement record, too:
Princeton University | Bendheim Center for Finance

While no salary details are given, I have no reason to doubt it.

They have given a snapshot ot the salaries:

" The average first year starting salary of our June 2007 graduates was $140,000. These numbers include only salary and guaranteed bonus. In addition, most people receive an additional bonus which is determined based on their performance and that of their group at the end of the year. This additional amount often represents 10 to 25% of the base salary for rookies (and often more for those with prior work experience) and is not included in the figures above. "

 

[DominiConnor]

I'd love to help on the placement stats, but no single HH firm has that sort of coverage.

I certainly agree with Andy's notion that those who have good stats will tend to shout them, since if you are selling something for $60,000 it's good to say how it helps.

But even then it is historical, rather than predictive, which in the current climate is a real issue.

Salary is a tricky one, since the measure one is interested in knowing is the "value add". Some programs have been loud about the average salary for their grads, but don't say what it was before. This is especially true of those associated with business schools.

The problem with that number is that programs differ in the mix of people coming in. It is clearly not the case that someone with a few years experience + masters will earn the same as someone who did it straight after undergrad degree.

One thing that is not made clear to people choosing MFEs is that it isn't really a curve.
Each bank ,or each manager has some idea about "good schools". There is no real consensus, and a big error that newbies make is to think about US schools, as if they were the only ones.

Fact is that hiring managers are from every place on the planet. We have a few who actually come from places that aren't even politically recognised as existing.

A French or British manager will have a very different take on good schools from an American, and they aren't even constant over time.

We all suffer from sampling bias, the last few people I've seen from one big program have been very substandard, but conversely the Florida and Essex programs which are not hosted in "big name" universities, but my interactions with their alumni have been pleasing.

One of the best MFE programs in Europe, possibly the best, is at Warwick. Hands up those who have never even heard of it ? It's not a strong brand in NY because there are no BBC or HBO series about Edwardian rich people getting drunk and failing to have sex there.
(no I'm not a Warwick alumnus).

 

[Sachin]

A very interesting response on placements from a supposedly top school:

There is this friend of mine who got admitted to a top school which incidentally does not make it's placement stats public.He asked them about the stats and the Co-ordinator replied that you would get to know about it when you JOIN!!
All mortals genuflect :prayer::prayer:

 

[DominiConnor]

Go on, tell us who that was ?
:wall

 

[alain]

So my question is why on earth haven't more MFE programs posted their placement stats.

Why should they? People are coming to these programs regardless so, why should they advertise it? It might be good or it might be bad. You post these numbers to attract students. The issue is that once you start to do it, you have to do it all the time if not there are going to be red flags raised all over the place.

I understand why we do it (we as in Baruch). We have a great program, it wasn't as recognize before and one way of getting the world attention is publishing our placement stats but, as a business standpoint, why should a school that is already famous advertise it? Even more, it looks like there is a lot of demand to get into a MFE program regardless what they are. So, like in the market, there will always be somebody to buy into any program regardless if their views are good or bad. Sometimes people don't want to wait.

In a hot market, if you cook a product, there is usually somebody who is going to buy it, right? The same apply to MFE programs. Regardless if they are good or bad, somebody is going to be willing to pony up the money, so why should they advertise? Also, I have never seen any other program as in Computer Science for instance, advertising their placement, so why should they start now? This is all common sense.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Dear Sir,
While you have some valid arguments, I have to respectfully disagree on a few points

Why should they? People are coming to these programs regardless so, why should they advertise it? It might be good or it might be bad. You post these numbers to attract students. The issue is that once you start to do it, you have to do it all the time if not there are going to be red flags raised all over the place.

This explains why some programs DONT WANT TO post their stats. You can be held liable if you put on some deceptive marketing materials.

Saying "Traditionally, we have successfully placed our students in positions on Wall Street. Our placement rate has been close to 100% the last few years" is a very VAGUE point.
Close to 100% means a lots of thing. It can mean 90% and in a program that admits 60+ students a year, it means 6 of them couldn't get jobs.
Well, traditionally, everyone got job in the hot market. The saying above didn't specify when. What is the placement rate NOW in this market ?

...as a business standpoint, why should a school that is already famous should advertise it?

Because they are banking on the brand of the university as a whole to sell A-Z. It's true that top university usually has really good programs. We all know that MFE is a niche program and the relation between the big university name and quality of its MFE program is not always positively correlated.
This gives a small public liberal art school like Baruch a chance to put out a very strong MFE program that can directly compete against programs from top universities like NYU, CMU, Columbia,etc.

Even more, it looks like there is a lot of demand to get into a MFE program regardless what they are. So, like in the market, there will always be somebody to buy into any program regardless if their views are good or bad. Sometimes people don't want to wait.

There is always a market for students who can't make it to the more competitive programs. There are always suckers out there who bought into anything. Just like on Wall Street.

In a hot market, if you cook a product, there is usually somebody who is going to buy it, right? The same apply to MFE programs. Regardless if they are good or bad, somebody is going to be willing to pony up the money, so why should they advertise?

This has been true for the past few years when the job market was hot and demanding for mfe graduates is high. If people have a high chance of recouping their 100K investment after school, they don't give it a second thought.

Now, people start paying more attention to the job stat, placement service at each program. I have never seen anyone critizing the placement service at Columbia, NYU, Chicago the last few years. Now, people are calling, emailing the directors, students to try to get a closer picture of what is going on.

For all I know, the lack of job stats are negatively affecting those programs. You can get by in good times, but not in this market condition.

Also, I have never seen any other program as in Computer Science for instance, advertising their placement, so why should they start now? This is all common sense.

I have a big disagreement over this. You can't compare CS degree to professional programs like MFE/MBA.
As far as CS degree is concerned, it is just another degree that thousands of university produce every year. I don't see it any different than an English, History degree. The students got the degree and go find a job themselves using the school career service, website, etc. The dept which produces that degrees are done with them. They have no obligation to place their graduates.

It's different in MFE program. Placement is a HUGE, HUGE part of it. Why would anyone in their right mind paying 100K just to get a degree and left to navigate the job market themselves. In most case, the help from the program is worth the tuition itself.

Some feel more compelled to help their students than others but that's another discussion.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Because they are banking on the brand of the university as a whole to sell A-Z. It's true that top university usually has really good programs. We all know that MFE is a niche program and the relation between the big university name and quality of its MFE program is not always positively correlated.
This gives a small public liberal art school like Baruch a chance to put out a very strong MFE program that can directly compete against programs from top universities like NYU, CMU, Columbia,etc.

Andy, I'm loath to agree with Alain )) but he is making some valid points. A third-tier school like Baruch feels more of an imperative to display its intern stats than, say, a second-tier school like CMU or a first-tier school like Columbia (note: I'm emphatically not talking of the strength of the programs offered at these schools). Princeton is showing its placement stats but schools like Columbia -- whose program and placement figures may not be that great -- are relying more on their brand name.

There is always a market for students who can't make it to the more competitive programs. There are always suckers out there who bought into anything. Just like on Wall Street.

But if they can't make it the more competitive programs, should they not settle for second-best? Does that necessarily make them suckers if they don't have a choice? After all, entry to the best programs is fiercely competitive. Not everyone can be first-rate (like yourself ).

This has been true for the past few years when the job market was hot and demanding for mfe graduates is high. If people have a high chance of recouping their 100K investment after school, they don't give it a second thought.

Now, people start paying more attention to the job stat, placement service at each program. I have never seen anyone critizing the placement service at Columbia, NYU, Chicago the last few years. Now, people are calling, emailing the directors, students to try to get a closer picture of what is going on.

For all I know, the lack of job stats are negatively affecting those programs. You can get by in good times, but not in this market condition.

I agree with you to an extent. Smart students should do this. However the same problem afflicts MBA students -- and despite the fact that over 100,000 are receiving the degree every year doesn't detract many from this very dicey investment (with sums similar to MFE programs being forked out).

I have a big disagreement over this. You can't compare CS degree to professional programs like MFE/MBA.
As far as CS degree is concerned, it is just another degree that thousands of university produce every year. I don't see it any different than an English, History degree. The students got the degree and go find a job themselves using the school career service, website, etc. The dept which produces that degrees are done with them. They have no obligation to place their graduates.

But the outlay for these grad degrees is often the same in the US -- and they're completing these degrees without assurances of employment. (In the UK there's a big difference between fees for MFE and, say, computing).

It's different in MFE program. Placement is a HUGE, HUGE part of it. Why would anyone in their right mind paying 100K just to get a degree and left to navigate the job market themselves. In most case, the help from the program is worth the tuition itself.

For the same reason that people do their MBAs at second-tier and third-tier schools (often paying fees comparable to first-rate ones), with a very uncertain outlook. I predict the same will happen with the MFE as it seems so many universities in the USA, England, and Australia are trying to jump on this bandwagon. And as with an MBA, students will make the investment knowing the return may be uncertain. Note: I'm not saying these are wise decisions, merely what will happen.

 

[alain]

Andy, I'm loath to agree with Alain )) but he is making some valid points. A third-tier school like Baruch feels more of an imperative to display its intern stats than, say, a second-tier school like CMU or a first-tier school like Columbia (note: I'm emphatically not talking of the strength of the programs offered at these schools). Princeton is showing its placement stats but schools like Columbia -- whose program and placement figures may not be that great -- are relying more on their brand name.

You are loath to agree with me? C'mon dude

BTW, I wouldn't consider Baruch a Third tier school. As I have mentioned before, tiers and rankings are in the eye of the beholder. I think we post our numbers because they are extremely good and we do have a great group of a students... and we want to attract the best to keep it going.

But if they can't make it the more competitive programs, should they not settle for second-best?

Remember, second place is the first loser

 

[bigbadwolf]

BTW, I wouldn't consider Baruch a Third tier school. As I have mentioned before, tiers and rankings are in the eye of the beholder.

As I said, it's not with regard to the MFE, rather to the university as a whole. And as you say, even this resides in the eye of the beholder. Princeton and Columbia have cachet (much as we deplore it) that Baruch doesn't. Baruch is not known even within the USA, let alone outside it. I reiterate: this has nothing to do with the quality of the MFE. But it does mean that Baruch -- like Avis -- has to try harder (Avis Rent-a-Car's slogan used to be "We're number two; we try harder") to advertise itself to employers and perhaps to prospective students.

 

[DominiConnor]

Actually, I am not sure I believe anyone has "close to 100%" placement rates.
If you include people who drop out, I fear it is rather lower.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

But if they can't make it the more competitive programs, should they not settle for second-best? Does that necessarily make them suckers if they don't have a choice? After all, entry to the best programs is fiercely competitive. Not everyone can be first-rate (like yourself ).

I used the term "suckers" in the context that as investors, they will just buy into anything the sellers say. If the sellers say it's AAA graded, then they will be happy to pay premium without realizing/knowing its true market value.

Thanks for the nice complement :smt053
And for the record, I only applied to Baruch when looking at various programs in NYC. I didn't apply to NYU, Columbia, CMU, etc not because I thought I couldn't get in, but because there is absolutely no way I can afford the tuition and I wasn't about to get a second part-time job to pay the loan. I don't have rich parents who pay for me.

Also, I have lived in NYC for big part of my life, did all my schooling in NYC so the brand names of those universities didn't have as much a selling point to me as to other international students.

I believe many of my classmates share these similarities. Dan Stefanica may have been a big factor in us joining the program but it's another story together

Actually, I am not sure I believe anyone has "close to 100%" placement rates.

Are you saying the 100% placement rate on the UCB website is false ? Do you know something us mortals don't ?

If you include people who drop out, I fear it is rather lower.

Should they include the dropouts in the calculation as well ?
Technically, the % should include only graduates in a calendar year. If you admit 100 people, by the end of the program, only 80 survive, why would you include the guys who dropout by the first semester ?

Is it telling of the quality control of the admission office, the bad teaching of the program, the incompetency of the students, etc ?

Dropout is a bigger problem for full-time only programs than to ft/pt programs since if you are a ft student, you are expected to put 100% effort in, good enough to graduate. I don't know any FT students who drop out since many of them are international student. Dropping out has a serious consequence on their student visa. And being out of status is a mess you don't want to deal with in this country.

Thoughts ?

 

[olepep]

Hello Feng

I got the same admits as you got , and I was also concerned with Chicago placement, although , in my case, I will go to the remote program at Stamford,CT, therefore location is not an issue. CMU seems to be a little bit better but I really think this is because they publish all the data as the program is in the business school., however chicago is held by the maths department and , usually, they don't bother gathering all the data.

Please post more info about placement in NY ( CT area), through University of Chicago.

Thanks

 

[Tigga]

New details

Further googling yields some interesting details about UCLA new program
Here is the proposal that was approved in 2004.

[FONT=&quot]AGSM intends to enroll a maximum of 50 students, with tuition set at $35,000 per year.[/FONT]

And the tuition is now 50K and lot increased to 60 students

• [FONT=&quot]Faculty teaching overloads: AGSM will follow the standard policy of paying faculty extra compensation for teaching on an overload basis. This policy puts the program on a “pay as you go” basis. This is the same approach as the executive MBA programs.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]FTE allocations: The School has decided to run the MFE on an overload basis until the program proves successful before committing FTE’s to the program. In the event the program goes into decline the permanent FTE will be absorbed into the executive programs.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Admissions contingencies: The program will follow current policies for the MBA admissions. If a student cannot obtain a visa in time, they are granted “deferred admission” status. The student will need to reapply for the next year, but the application is expedited.[/FONT]

 

[Tigga]

I just read Andy's post about Columbia's recommendation method
As far as I know, Columbia is the only school that applies this method. Rutgers has 2 programs and I never heard of them doing this. Columbia is unique in a sense that it has 2,3 programs that competing with each other.

What's everyone opinion on it ? Is this a common practice among big universities ? Do you know of any other program where similar pratice used ?

And more importantly, how would students who got rec'd make of this ? These are students who very aware of many programs Columbia has but decided to only apply to the FE one - supposedly de creme de crop there.

If someone wants to buy a top of the line BMW convertible but the dealer wants to sell him a last year coupe model, should he be happy that it's still BMW or should he go for other high end car ? You can get many basic options in the same coupe as in the convertible but there are things you can only get in a convert.

 

[alain]

And more importantly, how would students who got rec'd make of this ? These are students who very aware of many programs Columbia has but decided to only apply to the FE one - supposedly de creme de crop there.

I wonder the same thing. Anybody has an opinion on this?

 

[DominiConnor]

My point about "placement rates" is not that I really believe anyone is lying (except maybe Fordham), but that I see this as a single transaction, not a filtering process.

Someone buys a MFE course for $X where X is a non-trivial lump of cash, and like all good finance types I care about the options that expire worthless, and events that cause the option to become invalid as part of analysing the distribution.
Thus drop outs should be included.

Thus I would prefer to see statistics on drop-out rate, as well as the % who start the program who get a job at the end, maybe with the value of their jobs.

Actually, I'd like raw data as well, and that can be delivered with no loss of privacy.
Simply list the job titles and companies of graduates, no names, no salaries, but of we can all form a model from that of the value of the course.

I do not yet have proper numbers, but I perceive that many courses have high death rates, but of course they don't get their money back.

If these statistics were available, then I think 3 major good changes would happen to MFEs.

First, more emphasis on the quality of teaching, rather than "big names", some BNs are good teachers, some are quite amazingly bad.

Second, more tutorial support. No MFE seems to do this as well as they should as far as I can tell from talking to graduates. It is quite interesting to me that very little coverage is given to tutorials in brochures and information sessions. Yet MFEs are nearly all career changers to some extent. That means students may be excellent in their own field, but it's quite common for people to start the course with "holes".

Lastly of course, a more rigorous filter on who can start the course, which will save many from bad investment decision.

 

[dongta]

Interesting discussions.

I reiterate that what distinguishes an MFE from any other program is the concentration on theory (stochastic processes, PDEs, optimisation, theoretical numerical analysis,theoretical ideas behind simulation), computation (numerical methods, algorithms), and hard-core programming in C++. These are essential. Other things may be nice-to-have but not so crucial.

Wow, that's a lot of stuffs already. Do you think that you can master those areas in just 1 or 1.5 years? Given that amount of time, I strongly believe that a typically good student can only grab those in a recipes style.

3: Did your lecturers really tell you that "transferring our knowledge of these languages into C++ is a matter syntax. " ?

Well, I do agree that "C++ is a syntax matter" is a lame statement. However, through his writing on forums/blog, I believe that Dominic is biased and particularly obsessed with C++ programming in quant jobs. It probably takes a computer geek 10-20 years of programming to master the language. In my opinion, C++ is important but not as fundamental as Stochastic Calculus, Modeling, Numerical Computations, (and maybe some sense of Finance/Econometrics). Ones need a lot of time/effort to absorb those fields. So, with only 1 (or 1.5) year, what should students learn? Probably not much of C++. Think Opportunity Cost.

Ideally, C++ (or programming skills in general) should be required as a preliminary, not as a core part of the FE training.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Wow, that's a lot of stuffs already. Do you think that you can master those areas in just 1 or 1.5 years? Given that amount of time, I strongly believe that a typically good student can only grab those in a recipes style.

You are correct. It takes more time than the length of a typical MFE program. But we're quibbling over nothing: even exposure to these is what distinguishes MFE programs.