COMPARE Master Programs Comparison: Which quant program to choose?

I think the best course of action is to talk to the actual alumni (through LinkedIn etc) and make your decision on that basis. CMU is a more established top 3 program in the world and Chicago has only recently been considered in the top 10. The peers at CMU would be more competitive and the course more rigorous. Hence, I voted for CMU. But then, I didn't even get in, so I guess my opinion is just based on things I've heard and read online/ through connections.
 
rodeo said:
I think the best course of action is to talk to the actual alumni (through LinkedIn etc) and make your decision on that basis. CMU is a more established top 3 program in the world and Chicago has only recently been considered in the top 10. The peers at CMU would be more competitive and the course more rigorous. Hence, I voted for CMU. But then, I didn't even get in, so I guess my opinion is just based on things I've heard and read online/ through connections.
Click to expand...
Honestly, one thing that changed my opinion about rankings was that I once did an exhaustive LinkedIn search to see which MFE programs placed more students in firms like HRT, Optiver, Jane Street, and the likes. And I discovered that Boston University (at the very bottom of the ranking list) placed some alumni in Jane Street or other top prop trading firms more than I could find for programs like Georgia, UCLA, and even NYU. I understand some don't update their LinkedIn profiles but if Boston MSMFT students can get into Jane Street (meaning they were considered over candidates with Bachelor and Masters degree from the "top/prestigious" schools, think Harvard, Princeton, MIT, etc.), then it's really not about the rankings of the schools you attend.

That being said, if you gain admission into the very top schools like Princeton, CMU, UCB, Baruch, it is sort of easier to get interviews because of the extensive alumni connection. But if you are attending a lower ranked school, you will have to make up for this by networking, connecting with recruiters and tirelessly attending their career fairs. Get information about which schools they are planning to recruit from (could be the business school or the finance/FE program itself) and find your way there to talk to a recruiter. Then, submit your CV and hope for an interview. During interviews, prepare hard and put in your best. Connect with colleagues in other "top" programs to see how they prep for interviews. You do this again and again until you land a job.

The real competition is not during the admission phase itself but in the job market. Goodluck to us all!
 
Last edited:
joe_boy said:
Honestly, one thing that changed my opinion about rankings was that I once did an exhaustive LinkedIn search to see which MFE programs placed more students in firms like HRT, Optiver, Jane Street, and the likes. And I discovered that Boston University (at the very bottom of the ranking list) placed some alumni in Jane Street or other top prop trading firms more than I could find for programs like Georgia, UCLA, and even NYU. I understand some don't update their LinkedIn profiles but if Boston MSMFT students can get into Jane Street (meaning they were considered over candidates with Bachelor and Masters degree from the "top/prestigious" schools, think Harvard, Princeton, MIT, etc.), then it's really not about the rankings of the schools you attend.

That being said, if you gain admission into the very top schools like Princeton, CMU, UCB, Baruch, it is sort of easier to get interviews because of the extensive alumni connection. But if you are attending a lower ranked school, you will have to make up for this by networking, connecting with recruiters and tirelessly attending their career fairs. Get information about which schools they are planning to recruit from (could be the business school or the finance/FE program itself) and find your way there to talk to a recruiter. Then, submit your CV and hope for an interview. During interviews, prepare hard and put in your best. Connect with colleagues in other "top" programs to see how they prep for interviews. You do this again and again until you land a job.

The real competition is not during the admission phase itself but in the job market. Goodluck to us all!
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right. In the end, merit will win, no question. Rankings are just a way of making the process a bit easier and surrounding yourself with people (peers and professors) who are more ambitious, talented and aware than the rest.
 
joe_boy said:
I discovered that Boston University (at the very bottom of the ranking list) placed some alumni in Jane Street or other top prop trading firms more than I could find for programs like Georgia, UCLA, and even NYU. I understand some don't update their LinkedIn profiles but if Boston MSMFT students can get into Jane Street (meaning they were considered over candidates with Bachelor and Masters degree from the "top/prestigious" schools, think Harvard, Princeton, MIT, etc.), then it's really not about the rankings of the schools you attend.
Click to expand...
This surprised me, so I tried to find all the graduates you spoke of.

I only found two alumni, and they both work in trading desk operations engineering.

Did I miss any? What positions are these graduates working in, and can you help me better search? My baseline is still that BU doesn't have a strong JS presence.
 
MikeLawrence said:
This surprised me, so I tried to find all the graduates you spoke of.

I only found two alumni, and they both work in trading desk operations engineering.

Did I miss any? What positions are these graduates working in, and can you help me better search? My baseline is still that BU doesn't have a strong JS presence.
Click to expand...
I'll inform you but first, let me know if you found any student from the other schools I mentioned in those firms.
And then again, don't just do JS, search for other top prop trading firms and compare your results to other higher ranked programs on QuantNet.
 
I didn't find any at JS from UCLA or NYU, and I won't be looking for GT - because your point still doesn't hold.

There are thresholds to this. The top programs place students into the (much) more competitive roles at JS and similar firms, and they do so with regularity (as much as that exists for these positions). Finding a program that placed a total of two students into one of the easiest positions at a top firm is not a sign of a Dimond-In-The-Rust. The job description doesn't even require C++, and it's an engineering based position.

The difference between BU and UCLA/GT (and in this case I guess NYU? though they are in a bit of a weird position) is still far less than that between UCLA/GT and Princeton, Columbia, Berkeley, Baruch, CMU.
 
MikeLawrence said:
I didn't find any at JS from UCLA or NYU, and I won't be looking for GT - because your point still doesn't hold.

There are thresholds to this. The top programs place students into the (much) more competitive roles at JS and similar firms, and they do so with regularity (as much as that exists for these positions). Finding a program that placed a total of two students into one of the easiest positions at a top firm is not a sign of a Dimond-In-The-Rust. The job description doesn't even require C++, and it's an engineering based position.

The difference between BU and UCLA/GT (and in this case I guess NYU? though they are in a bit of a weird position) is still far less than that between UCLA/GT and Princeton, Columbia, Berkeley, Baruch, CMU.
Click to expand...
You didn't get the point. You should re-read the original post I guess. Apart from Princeton, CMU, and UCB, tell me any other US QuantFin program that places students into those types of firms regularly.

UCB and CMU places probably only about 5 (sometimes maybe 2-3) student(s) in those types of firms per year. And saying the roles are not competitive is such a laugh in the face of thousands who applied and desperately desired those roles.

No need to have any further arguments, when it comes to job search, rankings are not as important as your personal qualities. If you are exceptional, you will get the job. It's as simple as that!

Funny is that there are even folks from schools that have worse rankings than Boston, studied courses like Maths, Stats,, no masters and they are working in those firms. You should spend more time on LinkedIn just as I did before you come back here next time to make a point.
 
Last edited:
MikeLawrence said:
I'd go with Uchicago unless you have really strong plans to do a Ph.D after a stint in industry.

Cost benefit just doesn't make sense otherwise. I was really happy to see Uchicago's median salary increase like it did this year, it's the workhorse of affordability now and I love it so much. Strange to say about Uchicago, but it's practically blue collar compared to the costs of other top programs and how well it rewards those who show up knowing what's needed.
Click to expand...
I still think there is a case to make that the Cost benefit of CMU is perhaps even better than UChicago. Yes cost is higher, but so is the benefit. The curriculum (at least to me) seems much more "future proof" in terms of my understanding of the buy side positions im exploring - more data science, more ML, more computational finance. This makes me think that what you will learn at CMU will prepare you better and in turn make you perform better long-term at these positions, hence a higher benefit. This is hard to accurately gauge though of course. Also CMU has a higher average starting salary, so the increased cost is somewhat dampened through your higher sign-on bonus and higher savings your first couple of years of working. CMU also has a 5-year career report which looks very promising in terms of buy-side prospects salary progression for CMU students. Also interesting is what alumni report as the most valuable skill for QF success: 1) 53% say programming, 2) 28% say data science, 3) 24% say softskills... exactly what the CMU curriculum is centered around.

This is what puts me on the fence - Chicago is very obviously great value for money (and perhaps even a better overall brand name than CMU), but I think CMU, even with a higher price tag might be a better long-term investment for success in the industry.
 
joe_boy said:
You didn't get the point. You should re-read the original post I guess. Apart from Princeton, CMU, and UCB, tell me any other US QuantFin program that places students into those types of firms regularly.

UCB and CMU places probably only about 5 (sometimes maybe 2-3) student(s) in those types of firms per year. And saying the roles are not competitive is such a laugh in the face of thousands who applied and desperately desired those roles.

No need to have any further arguments, when it comes to job search, rankings are not as important as your personal qualities. If you are exceptional, you will get the job. It's as simple as that!

Funny is that there are even folks from schools that have worse rankings than Boston, studied courses like Maths, Stats,, no masters and they are working in those firms. You should spend more time on LinkedIn just as I did before you come back here next time to make a point.
Click to expand...
Also something to think about - do these programs place into these firms regularly because of the quality of the program, or because of the quality of students that are accepted to that program. Will a top student at Boston have more difficulties in placing than an average student at UCB? No idea honestly lol, but top programs (and universities with brand names in general) will definitely make it easier to get that foot in the door.
 
Arbitrary said:
Also something to think about - do these programs place into these firms regularly because of the quality of the program, or because of the quality of students that are accepted to that program. Will a top student at Boston have more difficulties in placing than an average student at UCB? No idea honestly lol, but top programs (and universities with brand names in general) will definitely make it easier to get that foot in the door.
Click to expand...
You are right. I honestly can't answer that question. There are so many dynamics to that. There are still some advantages to attending a top ranked institution such as the quality of your peers (due to selectivity, which might not be helpful at times because everyone is egoistic, competitive, and trying to get ahead of you), the professors (their network might be very important), the brand name itself (alumni connections etc.)...I am a fan of excellence so I have nothing against rankings. All things being equal, I would choose a highly ranked school over a lower ranked one.

I've been in the quant industry for over 3yrs and I attended a highly ranked institution in my country but at the end of the day, I found out many people from my school or other top ranked ones are not able to pass the assessment test and ace the interviews to get offers. And I'm sure this is the case in every country. If you have some work experience, you will understand what I am saying. Many people from lower ranked institutions perform better than some.folks from the high ranking ones,,, not saying those schools are better...But that is the reality of the labor market.
 
Hey everyone!

I hope that you are starting to receive the decision emails that you have been waiting for. I know it can be super stressful but remember that there is always a path forward. In terms of my own decisions, there are two completely different paths my graduate journey could take, and I am having a very hard time deciding what might be best. Hopefully my struggle might help some of you decide as well.

I've been fortunate enough to receive admission offers for the CMU MSCF program with a 15k scholarship (Which would be 1.5 years Full-Time) and UC Berkeley's MFE program (Which would be 2 Years Part-Time). From what I have been reading online, both are top institutions, but I was wondering which program would give me the best ROI and would be better for my career?

Some background on me, I am in the final year of my undergraduate degree (non-target school) with a triple major in Math, Statistics, and Applied Science Engineering and I have completed two internships in portfolio management. I also completed the level 1 CFA Exam. My goal is to ideally get a job in Quantitative Portfolio Management at a HF or AM firm. If that doesn't work out, then I would also like to explore prop-trading or HFT.

I received and accepted a full-time offer from the Fortune 500 insurance company to work in their CIO which would only be in-person 2 times a week. But they gave me the option to convert it into an internship if I wish to pursue my masters. So, I see two paths:
1) Convert my full-time job to an internship and go to CMU MSCF full time in New York (Commutable from my current place).
2) Work full-time and go to Berkeley online part-time for 2 years.

Here's where I'm torn: On one hand, CMU's MSCF program offers a full-time immersive experience, allowing me to focus entirely on my studies and delve deep into the material without the distractions of a full-time job. I really like CMU's focus on Machine Learning and the computational aspect of thing. Also, I will be able to network with more industry professionals in NYC. On the other hand, Berkeley's MFE program offers the flexibility of part-time study, allowing me to continue working full-time while pursuing my degree (And I will be making the money to pay off the degree as I work). I will also gain experience and promotions as I complete my degree. However, I just feel like I won't be able to utilize Berkeley's resources to their full potential.


If you have insights into either program that might help my decision, I would greatly appreciate any advice or perspectives you can offer. Which program in general do you think I should go with? Any input would be super helpful!

Thank you in advance for your help!
 
I would hesitate to do an MFE online. If the F500 company was in the bay and you could do Berkeley part time in person it may make more sense. I voted for CMU given the facts you've presented.
 
Waiting CMU / didn’t apply for CBS, but chose CMU.

While depends on your qualities, I doubt it will go wrong either way. however chose CMU solely based on its strong employment and rep for all rounded quants
 

Similar threads

Andy Nguyen
Rutgers to Launch Third Quant Master Program
Replies
9
Views
12K
binomial-torrent
binomial-torrent
Back
Top Bottom