I've based my applications to grad school on this website's 2023 ranking. But now that admissions are rolling in, I'm really starting to wonder if these ranks really matter. So far my options are Johns Hopkins FinMath, Stevens MFE, and now Fordham MSQF (still waiting to hear back from other schools). Although the technically highest ranked program on my list is JHU, I'm personally leaning towards Fordham (they also gave me a 25k scholarship). I'm based in NYC, so this also factors into my decision. But should I be choosing my school purely based on rank?
-
Countdown to the 2025 QuantNet rankings. Join the list to get the ranking prior to public release!
Do the rankings really matter?
- Thread starter ssbes
- Start date
- Joined
- 2/14/23
- Messages
- 673
- Points
- 223
Rankings matter a ton for immediate placement. But many of those top placed students came there with 4 years of experience from Goldman Sachs or something. Still, the trend holds.
Long-term, the individual's ability and work ethic play a larger role than it does in immediate placement. If you continue to study and work every day, you can improve your standing. Finance is meritorious in that way. If you just continue to learn math + stats + coding for years, as if you were part time in a MFE, you can definitely transfer to a higher role as you improve. So choosing a cheaper local position over a better ranked program might not be the best short term decision, but could be the best long term. If that's what it takes to stay in the game. Since high school it has amazed me how many people leave college and stop learning.
I'm a long-distance runner, we have an equivalent mindset. You can only train as hard as you can without blowing up. No injuries allowed. The set back can be years on your fitness with one injury. But you also have to be willing to continue training long enough to improve long-term, even through injuries that have no end. Finance seems similar. There is a high rate on burnout and high turnover. All this depends on how consistently you are able and willing to work, and how long you can continue at that level.
However, if you goal is a top comp top prestige spot or bust, then you better start acting like it. Same thing goes here as it does in running, you can't decide you want to be a world class marathoner if you are 35 and 280. It won't happen. (There are exceptions, sorta, 20something 150 pound world class marathoners with no background come from Ethiopia, Kenya, and recently other eastern African countries all the time. Explaining why would take to much space. But they start at levels that equivalent age Americans can't dream of. It's sorta like the random Ph.D in biology or Psychology you'll hear about being accepted to Princeton or Baruch. They were already smart, and probably with numbers, now they are focused).
TLDR: Short term, yes, choose purely on rank ALL ELSE EQUAL. Otherwise, no, do what you can when you can. Don't brake the bank on a name brand you aren't prepared for.
Long-term, the individual's ability and work ethic play a larger role than it does in immediate placement. If you continue to study and work every day, you can improve your standing. Finance is meritorious in that way. If you just continue to learn math + stats + coding for years, as if you were part time in a MFE, you can definitely transfer to a higher role as you improve. So choosing a cheaper local position over a better ranked program might not be the best short term decision, but could be the best long term. If that's what it takes to stay in the game. Since high school it has amazed me how many people leave college and stop learning.
I'm a long-distance runner, we have an equivalent mindset. You can only train as hard as you can without blowing up. No injuries allowed. The set back can be years on your fitness with one injury. But you also have to be willing to continue training long enough to improve long-term, even through injuries that have no end. Finance seems similar. There is a high rate on burnout and high turnover. All this depends on how consistently you are able and willing to work, and how long you can continue at that level.
However, if you goal is a top comp top prestige spot or bust, then you better start acting like it. Same thing goes here as it does in running, you can't decide you want to be a world class marathoner if you are 35 and 280. It won't happen. (There are exceptions, sorta, 20something 150 pound world class marathoners with no background come from Ethiopia, Kenya, and recently other eastern African countries all the time. Explaining why would take to much space. But they start at levels that equivalent age Americans can't dream of. It's sorta like the random Ph.D in biology or Psychology you'll hear about being accepted to Princeton or Baruch. They were already smart, and probably with numbers, now they are focused).
TLDR: Short term, yes, choose purely on rank ALL ELSE EQUAL. Otherwise, no, do what you can when you can. Don't brake the bank on a name brand you aren't prepared for.
Well, the thing is that I'm not even trying to become a quant trader / analyst / researcher. I'm a software engineer trying to become a quant developer with a financial engineering education. So for me, I'm not even sure if placement is of huge concern. If it is, please correct me, this is based on my knowledge of the quant field.
For reference, I've been working for 1 year at a large investment bank as a software engineer, specifically low-latency trading. Before that, I went to a top-ranked public school for math, computer science, and statistics.That's why I feel like, ultimately, my background even with a program like Fordham on its roster is still quite formidable.
Anyway, waiting to hear back from these big, big schools has been incredibly stressful. I was rejected by CUNY Baruch in end of Jan, and they just "un-rejected" me, as in, they've started to review my application again, no idea why. If I got into all of the schools I applied to, I'm not sure if rank would be the only deciding factor for me.
This forum historical stands behind the "ranking matters" concept, but I put less faith it. I went to public state schools for my BS and MS, and was able to land an internship and role that I wanted. There is no true answer to the job market - everyone has a different resume and varying luck. Everyone only has one background, so we can't stress test our job prospects. Someone who has a great job and went to a Top 10 will tell you to do the same - because that is what worked for them. Someone who has made it taking a less prestigious path may tell you otherwise.
I think it is fair to say ranking is not the only thing that matters. Keep in mind that this is all for not if you don't enjoy/can't afford the program. I would use your discretion in making this decision instead of going off of this forum or some ranking. Don't let someone else make this decision for you - you know yourself better than we ever will.
I think it is fair to say ranking is not the only thing that matters. Keep in mind that this is all for not if you don't enjoy/can't afford the program. I would use your discretion in making this decision instead of going off of this forum or some ranking. Don't let someone else make this decision for you - you know yourself better than we ever will.
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,177
- Points
- 273
I said this before but worth repeating. We see great value and huge demand for the MFE rankings we do every year, otherwise we won't do it because it is A LOT of work to get it done. It literally takes months of survey, emails from 30+ programs to get the data and then weeks to calculate the ranking.
We know our rankings have a lot of influence and we take it very seriously. A lot of data in our rankings are not accessible to most applicants. Students use it to apply and select the programs.
After all that, you should use the rankings in addition to the student reviews, and do additional research. The forum is a great way to ask questions, pick the signal from all the noise. If possible, go to open house and meet with the people there. Go to LinkedIn and reach out to current students and alumni.
We make it easier to shop or research programs but a lot of hard work can only be done by applicants.
We know our rankings have a lot of influence and we take it very seriously. A lot of data in our rankings are not accessible to most applicants. Students use it to apply and select the programs.
After all that, you should use the rankings in addition to the student reviews, and do additional research. The forum is a great way to ask questions, pick the signal from all the noise. If possible, go to open house and meet with the people there. Go to LinkedIn and reach out to current students and alumni.
We make it easier to shop or research programs but a lot of hard work can only be done by applicants.
- Joined
- 2/14/23
- Messages
- 673
- Points
- 223
The last ranking has something over 3 million hits so far. Compared to the rest of the traffic on the forums that is enormous. Undoubtedly there is a huge demand, and everyone on here is very grateful for this forum and all the information on it.
However, the demand for the rankings don't necessarily impact the weight we should give them. They are a very helpful piece of the puzzle, but only a piece. The point is that healthy long-term growth doesn't have to happen at the highest ranked schools, as long as you've got the ability and drive to compete with them (and you can show this to employers) then you've got a decent shot. But I'm not saying that it doesn't make the road much easier. It obviously does. But it's not the end all. I'm just giving OP the other side of the equation, knowing that she (along with her gut, and everyone else's) will get the other side by looking at almost any other post.
As far as driving demand for your business (this site) it is definitely the best thing you have going. Nothing else comes close. Almost everyone who finds this place (I would seriously guess 98%) finds it through those rankings. A lot of the demand to get them done is probably your balance sheet. And it's fair, they seem to be great rankings. I found them, and then stuck around. But your response was mainly directed at defending the rankings and not towards helping OP with her question. That seems wrong. No one attacked them. I mean no offense with this, your response just seems out of place.
Last edited:
Sorry for the random correction, but the OP is a she
- Joined
- 2/14/23
- Messages
- 673
- Points
- 223
Disclaimer: it is of medium size.
I should probably say that, unencumbered by any strange happenstance, and given a solid current financial situation, I will probably be going to one of the highest ranked schools (if I get a spot) because they are typically better. Like Andy said, my choice will depend on a host of other factors, but they all tend to be correlated with ranking. They are worth the investment, but I don't believe they are the only way to get there. Though they might be the best. It just sort of works that way. Personally, I will shoot my shot at all of the top programs, regardless of location, because I am trying to maximize the expected outcome in pay and flexibility. You seemed encumbered by location and care a lot about price. Offering advice on an online forum is difficult. Offering advice in person is difficult too. So, there's that.
Picking highest ranking or not is dependent on two things I originally stated:
Your competence, and
your desire to maximize top outcomes.
If you aren't competent enough to make full use of the program... you should probably still go because if you can graduate you have the name on your resume which is just the state of the world for recruiting. But you could also be lost and totally confused. I've seen many reviews of Chicago's program, and others (a few for NYU), that trash it for requiring more math or stats than they were prepared for. Which is really on them.
If you're just looking for any quant job, then most of the programs ranked (probably all of them) plus some work ethic will do just fine. Or maybe it won't, but I don't totally buy the doomsday notion that finance and especially quant finance is impossible to break into and you have to have connection and the best schools and... etc.
That said, I'm at a decent school on track to graduate with 3 majors and a minor or 4 majors or 3 majors 2 minors, two of those degrees will be stem, and two business. So I can't really say anything. I do believe that if you really want it, and you're willing to lock yourself in a room and read math/stat textbooks and code, then you will almost certainly get into one of the top programs. Eventually. Probably. Right? But...too many people think otherwise for there not to be some good basis in the other notion.
A good portion of this is talent, and talent doesn't typically wait until we are 40 to show up. A large portion of it is genetic, and upbringing, kids of Ph.D's are much better off in school than 1st gen students, typically. It starts early and just builds. I don't know how much of my somewhat optimistic outlook was due to my truly amazing parents. Both of whom have masters degrees, and one of whom was halfway to a Ph.D. One of whom knew a guy who knew a guy who passed along my resume to get me a fin. internship. Good graduate programs are like good parents. They aren't necessary, but they make life easier.
But no, to your original question: you should not choose a school purely off of rank. However, it is a factor. I didn't go the top... four or five schools I was accepted too, but my reasoning for college choice was almost solely dependent on whether the Cross Country coach would think about recruiting me, and the odds that I could transfer to a program that had a chance of winning nationals, so I'm a bad example.
I should probably say that, unencumbered by any strange happenstance, and given a solid current financial situation, I will probably be going to one of the highest ranked schools (if I get a spot) because they are typically better. Like Andy said, my choice will depend on a host of other factors, but they all tend to be correlated with ranking. They are worth the investment, but I don't believe they are the only way to get there. Though they might be the best. It just sort of works that way. Personally, I will shoot my shot at all of the top programs, regardless of location, because I am trying to maximize the expected outcome in pay and flexibility. You seemed encumbered by location and care a lot about price. Offering advice on an online forum is difficult. Offering advice in person is difficult too. So, there's that.
Picking highest ranking or not is dependent on two things I originally stated:
Your competence, and
your desire to maximize top outcomes.
If you aren't competent enough to make full use of the program... you should probably still go because if you can graduate you have the name on your resume which is just the state of the world for recruiting. But you could also be lost and totally confused. I've seen many reviews of Chicago's program, and others (a few for NYU), that trash it for requiring more math or stats than they were prepared for. Which is really on them.
If you're just looking for any quant job, then most of the programs ranked (probably all of them) plus some work ethic will do just fine. Or maybe it won't, but I don't totally buy the doomsday notion that finance and especially quant finance is impossible to break into and you have to have connection and the best schools and... etc.
That said, I'm at a decent school on track to graduate with 3 majors and a minor or 4 majors or 3 majors 2 minors, two of those degrees will be stem, and two business. So I can't really say anything. I do believe that if you really want it, and you're willing to lock yourself in a room and read math/stat textbooks and code, then you will almost certainly get into one of the top programs. Eventually. Probably. Right? But...too many people think otherwise for there not to be some good basis in the other notion.
A good portion of this is talent, and talent doesn't typically wait until we are 40 to show up. A large portion of it is genetic, and upbringing, kids of Ph.D's are much better off in school than 1st gen students, typically. It starts early and just builds. I don't know how much of my somewhat optimistic outlook was due to my truly amazing parents. Both of whom have masters degrees, and one of whom was halfway to a Ph.D. One of whom knew a guy who knew a guy who passed along my resume to get me a fin. internship. Good graduate programs are like good parents. They aren't necessary, but they make life easier.
But no, to your original question: you should not choose a school purely off of rank. However, it is a factor. I didn't go the top... four or five schools I was accepted too, but my reasoning for college choice was almost solely dependent on whether the Cross Country coach would think about recruiting me, and the odds that I could transfer to a program that had a chance of winning nationals, so I'm a bad example.
- Joined
- 7/15/11
- Messages
- 19
- Points
- 13
Rankings matter in the short term to get a job out of college. The job you get and the experience you build would decide what stream of work you get into. It's a game of probability. For example, if you want to become a Portfolio manager, you most likely need experience in Quant Research/Trading, the entry to which may depend on the college you get into.
I've seen another forum post in which someone asked whether or not going to a school in ranks 1-10 or 11-20 makes or breaks your career... and I'm definitely worried about this myself. My only schools in 1-10 are Baruch, NYU, and Columbia, and I'm still waiting to hear back from all of those places. If I don't get into any of those places, should I still go to the schools that I got into in ranks 11-20? Some ppl were saying to just deny all offers and apply again the following year, but that seems like over-exertion for the circumstances. Also, I get that rankings matter a lot in the short-term, but just for the record, JHU FinMath is #17, Stevens is #19, and Fordham is #20. Across these schools, the range of the score listed is 11 pts, and I'm not worried about the tuition fees as much as someone above mentioned. Fordham did give a great scholarship, so I guess my question is does that scholarship justify the 11 pts drop from JHU, which gave me no scholarship?