Guess the new 2011 MFE rankings!!

cestlecutee

MFE Student
This is really an interesting thread. Thanks Lin of the 1st floor!

Also, I like alexinmusic's idea!!
My opinion: for students with different background, best programs for them are different.
Top MFE programs for quants:
Top MFE programs for sales & trading:
Top MFE programs for fresh graduate students:
Top MFE programs for students with experience:
I believe different programs are suit for applicants from different background and with different pursuit.
Some programs seem to show their preference of applicant clearly, but some are not.
If we can figure out the "personalities" of each program, that would be much better for applicant to refer to than a ranking.
For example, surveys on students is a good way to dig out some details of programs.
And I think QuantNet has already done a lot of good work!
 

cestlecutee

MFE Student
The 2011 Ranking Methodology will be released today so people have time to read it and better understand the ranking. What we found with the 2009 ranking is that many who commented on the ranking usually didn't bother to read the methodology.
I thought it might make the ranking more worth reading if included a bit more than 22 programs, say 30. However, it might be difficult to take in some programs while discarding others with seemingly quality.
Also, I doubt only including GRE Quantitative score. This score is not very good one, since almost every student's GRE-Q score is crowded around 770-800. The variation is too small. However, when programs are evaluating applicants, they tend to look at the verbal score as a way to distinguish.
 
Hey Andy, I read through the Rankings Methodology and noticed that you include some new programs in there. How do you deal with the new programs compared to established ones? Specifically, the newer programs won't necessarily have employment rates or starting salary rates, etc. Do you deduct from programs that are too new to have this information? I might have missed reading about this in the methodology.
 
Also, I doubt only including GRE Quantitative score. This score is not very good one, since almost every student's GRE-Q score is crowded around 770-800. The variation is too small. However, when programs are evaluating applicants, they tend to look at the verbal score as a way to distinguish.
One can hope that the new GRE exam will do a better job of telling applicants apart, specially the quantitative quality. And that it's not too easy to get the perfect 800Q anymore. Then it will have more value as an indicator.
More and more programs use phone/in-person interviews to evaluate applicants' English skills and this is not something very practical nor quantifiable for the programs to include in the survey.

Keep in mind that as an organization, it's a balancing act for Quantnet to encourage wide participation from programs without overburden them with a time-consuming survey. Can you guess how many programs will respond if we ask them 100 questions that they have to spend a lot of time to compile?
Hey Andy, I read through the Rankings Methodology and noticed that you include some new programs in there. How do you deal with the new programs compared to established ones? Specifically, the newer programs won't necessarily have employment rates or starting salary rates, etc. Do you deduct from programs that are too new to have this information? I might have missed reading about this in the methodology.
All programs in our 2011 ranking have graduated at least 2 cohorts by the time of 2011 survey so they have a track record and stats to supply to Quantnet.
We don't distinguish between new or established, Ivy or not. They are all judged equally by the strength of data they submit. Their placement/admission stats will speak for themselves.

An established/well-respected program will likely have more applications, with higher quality applicants, better starting salary, higher placement rate and well-known among hiring managers, among other things. This means the brand name, perceived quality factors are already factored into the numbers they produce.
 

cestlecutee

MFE Student
Keep in mind that as an organization, it's a balancing act for Quantnet to encourage wide participation from programs without overburden them with a time-consuming survey. Can you guess how many programs will respond if we ask them 100 questions that they have to spend a lot of time to compile?
I do understand! That's why I said you have already trying to do so, and with great results!
 
My Rankings (My focus is placements, as anyone who says that you come here to learn and that placements are not so important has got to be kidding; this isn't exactly PhD, as you get paid to study there. You just cant spend close to a $100k and not think about placements). Let me also add that if this weren't just quant finance,I would have also placed LBS's MiF among top 4 or 5:

1) UCB (beats everybody in terms of placements, quality of placements, and salaries) - including in 2009
2) Princeton (great placements, and quality of placements)
3) Baruch (great placements, but I'm not so sure about the same quality of placements as Princeton and UCB)
4) NYU (produce hardcore quants. Placements are not as good as those of the above 3, and careers post graduation are restricted to pure quant (at-least that is the impression I get from the course. The others are slightly more diverse, particularly UCB and Princeton)
5) CMU (Placements are decent. They definitely aren't great if you look through the numbers, and fees charged is exorbitant in comparison to the above programs.)
 
My ranking counters have come down to zero too. I think the counters are according to our local time, so mine touched zero when it was 9 AM India time. If I am not wrong, the rankings would be releasing at 9 AM US Eastern Coast time which is 1o.5 hrs behind the Indian time. So got to wait for the evening here in India.
 
My Rankings (My focus is placements, as anyone who says that you come here to learn and that placements are not so important has got to be kidding; this isn't exactly PhD, as you get paid to study there. You just cant spend close to a $100k and not think about placements). Let me also add that if this weren't just quant finance,I would have also placed LBS's MiF among top 4 or 5:

1) UCB (beats everybody in terms of placements, quality of placements, and salaries) - including in 2009
2) Princeton (great placements, and quality of placements)
3) Baruch (great placements, but I'm not so sure about the same quality of placements as Princeton and UCB)
4) NYU (produce hardcore quants. Placements are not as good as those of the above 3, and careers post graduation are restricted to pure quant (at-least that is the impression I get from the course. The others are slightly more diverse, particularly UCB and Princeton)
5) CMU (Placements are decent. They definitely aren't great if you look through the numbers, and fees charged is exorbitant in comparison to the above programs.)

NYU's placement not as good as Baruch, restricted to pure quant, are you serious? Just check what companies/positions they get for their summer jobs.
http://math.nyu.edu/financial_mathematics/content/04_current/class11.html
 
I dunno where, but I read on NYU's website that their placement rate was 84% in 2010. Baruch had, I think, placed all but 1 student back in 2010. I talked about final placements and not about internships. What you posted was just a resume book with info on internships. Further, there is no information on 8 students out of 38 students. How can I assume that those 8 students (20%) got summer jobs, let alone placements. The same problem lies with the information that CMU posts; therefore, I do not rate it as high as Baruch/Princeton/UCB.

Besides, the NYU's requirements and the course itself shows how quant focused the program is.

Please keep in mind that I'm NOT saying that they have no knowledge about finance. I'm just saying that they lack in this domain in comparison to the students from other top programs.
 
Top