COMPARE Master Programs Comparison: Which quant program to choose?

[MikeLawrence]

On one hand, I think the online MFE could a better option if you were later in your career and in a more relevant job but wanting a promotion or more job security. Working for an MFE part time in a non-quant role makes less sense unless you really needed the money to make it through the program.

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.

I don't think you're going to get multiple promotions in the first two years of your job, straight out of undergrad. Even if you got close, is IT at an insurance company what you want to end up doing? I don't know the particulars of the role, but I think devoting yourself to full-time study is a better option.

Plus, more experienced users (read: have graduated, and from top programs) say that you really can't do an MFE and a full-time job at the same time if you want to do it right. One or the other would have to give a little, but maybe the nature of your role and the ability to work from home most days counteracts this.

 

[befuddled]

Hi all,

I am fortunate to have received offers from both the UCB mfe and MIT mfin programs. However, I have some trouble deciding between the two and would appreciate any insights.

I am looking to work as a quant researcher at a hedge fund, and looking at past statistics it seems that the UCB program caters more to these QR roles and has a higher mean salary (maybe pushed up by a higher % of California-based grads?). However, while MIT has many grads going into non-quant roles, on the surface it seems that those going to QR roles get placed in similar caliber places to UCB. MIT provides a detailed breakdown of employers, but I couldn't find anything as detailed for UCB.

I appreciate neither program is a surefire way to get QR roles in top-tier hedge funds, but I would like to know which program would provide the best odds of landing a QR job at a top hedge fund.

(aside: I have a 30k scholarship for MIT, so both cost roughly the same overall and not a deciding factor for me)

Thank you very much!

 

[ajjjw]

Can't make a wrong decision here imo. If you are sure you want QR I'd go to Berkeley, if you wanted to maintain a bit of optionality re: what area of finance you'd like to go into then maybe lean MIT.

Also this is less of a factor since you can always apply anywhere after you graduate, but just by the numbers these programs are going to be placing a large number of people in firms that are geographically close to them - so worth it to consider if you want to be in the bay or in Boston

congrats!

 

[befuddled]

Can't make a wrong decision here imo. If you are sure you want QR I'd go to Berkeley, if you wanted to maintain a bit of optionality re: what area of finance you'd like to go into then maybe lean MIT.

Also this is less of a factor since you can always apply anywhere after you graduate, but just by the numbers these programs are going to be placing a large number of people in firms that are geographically close to them - so worth it to consider if you want to be in the bay or in Boston

congrats!

Thanks for the reply! Yep I’m fairly certain I want to go down the QR route so Berkeley is the way I’m leaning right now. I’m not too sure where I’d want to be working geographically rn so I can’t really use that to inform my decision.

Thanks again

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Congrats. You're in a good position to choose between those programs. Take your time to research before selecting one. Despite the sample data of job profiles you found, they are more different than similar. You will decide where you end up, and the program will need to provide sufficient resources to get you there.
UCB MFE is currently without an executive director. I don't know how much this will affect the program, but the former director, Linda, was known to be involved with her student's placements.
If you feel generous, do post your timelines on the Tracker. It helps our members a lot.

 

[befuddled]

Congrats. You're in a good position to choose between those programs. Take your time to research before selecting one. Despite the sample data of job profiles you found, they are more different than similar. You will decide where you end up, and the program will need to provide sufficient resources to get you there.
UCB MFE is currently without an executive director. I don't know how much this will affect the program, but the former director, Linda, was known to be involved with her student's placements.
If you feel generous, do post your timelines on the Tracker. It helps our members a lot.

Ah I see - thank you! Will add to the tracker.

 

[confusefinhalp]

How is the career services at UCB ? Would really like some insights..
Also how does the UCB program compare with MIT (in terms of career services as well as coursework) for someone who doesn’t have prior quant work ex. but a good amount of undergrad cs/ml coursework?

Need to make a decision soon so would be really helpful to get some perspectives..

 

[sweet]

Can't comment on Columbia, but MSCF incoming class is typically quite heavily new grads with no full time employment experience, and typically has pretty top tier employment stats compared to other MFEs (the 1.5 year curriculum is pretty well suited for people with no job experience because it gives you a year to learn - do an internship - come back and learn more about areas you are potentially more interested in - then go work). Berkeley, in my opinion, is a better suited to people who already come in with experience since it is only a 1 year program.

 

[LisaC]

Can't comment on Columbia, but MSCF incoming class is typically quite heavily new grads with no full time employment experience, and typically has pretty top tier employment stats compared to other MFEs (the 1.5 year curriculum is pretty well suited for people with no job experience because it gives you a year to learn - do an internship - come back and learn more about areas you are potentially more interested in - then go work). Berkeley, in my opinion, is a better suited to people who already come in with experience since it is only a 1 year program.

Thank you so much! This is very insightful. MSCF sounds like a better fit for undergrads straightly going to master's.

 

[LisaC]

Hi everyone!

I hope you are starting to hear back from programs you have been waiting for and get enough sleep during this stressful period. I was fortunate enough to receive admissions to both CMU MSCF and MIT MFin, and I had a hard time deciding between them. I would genuinely appreciate it if you could provide some insights on the two programs.

Some background about me: studied math + econ in my undergrad, no full time experience. International student, will need sponsorship. My goal is to 1) get a quant job in the US right after master’s graduation. 2) ideally QR in AM (or sell-side banks if I can’t get any in AM)

Some information I have collected:

• Reputation & alum network: CMU has a better reputation in quant (?correct me if I was wrong) but MIT has a bigger name overall. CMU has more alums in quant, while MIT Sloan is well connected in the broader finance industry.
  • Although my short term goal is to do quant in the US, I am not sure if I will go back to APAC or pivot to other industries in the long term. CMU seems to fit me better now, while MIT might provide more possibilities in the longer term? But I don't know if the school name still matters after I work for a couple of years.
• Employment statistics: CMU has better placement rate, both in terms of percentage of grad students getting full time job right after graduation, and percentage of people landing a US job
  • However, this might be biased, because some MIT students go to ibd or other non-quant jobs after graduation, and it’s hard to land an ibd job in the US as a master’s grad. Since I aim for quant, it makes more sense to only compare both programs’ quant placement. MIT didn’t provide more detailed information, maybe someone from the program can provide more insights?
  • Same bias exist in salary?
• Career Service: People say CMU has better career services, and I know it only serves the MSCF program. For MIT, I’m not sure if MFin gets its own career service team or not, also if resources at Sloan would lean to MBA or other MS programs or not. (Maybe you can answer)
• Curriculum: CMU is intense and MIT is more flexible. Some say CMU curriculum is “unnecessarily hard”, while MIT has some finance requirement courses that students don’t find useful. Not sure which is better for me, because I do need a hard-core curriculum to improve my skill sets, but also afraid of no time to look for a job.
• Competition within school: Not many people have talked about this, but one MIT alum told me other master’s programs in CMU might also recruit for quant, while in MIT, MFin is the only master’s program that recruits for quant, so less peer competitions within MIT. (Didn’t count PhDs, because we are not in the same pool?)
• Location: Minor point. My CMU program is in NYC, more job opportunities & worse living environment. MIT is in Boston, more AM companies(?) but overall less jobs. I’ve lived in Boston for half year before, really like the environment there.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide any additional information to help me make decision, even if it's a small or obvious one. I particularly want to learn more about MIT's US placement rate in quant. Thank you so much for taking time to read this.

 

[weab]

CMU MSCF is superior in quant, your best shot is choosing CMU. I am only concerned of the difference between NY / Pittsburgh location (I would choose main campus). Also MS school brand is a fraction of worth compared to undergrad, not that CMU has no brand. CMU curriculum is also better for quant.

 

[LisaC]

CMU MSCF is superior in quant, your best shot is choosing CMU. I am only concerned of the difference between NY / Pittsburgh location (I would choose main campus). Also MS school brand is a fraction of worth compared to undergrad, not that CMU has no brand. CMU curriculum is also better for quant.

Thanks! You are right that undergrad school brand matters more. I chose CMU NY location for more in-person networking & interview opportunities, but I've heard there's no big difference between the two locations.

 

[SD_]

Career Services at UCB is excellent.

I think the curriculum (MFin vs MFE) would be a more important factor here as both schools have a good alumni base and great industry connections.

 

[WSBquant]

Hi @confusefinhalp did you share your profile in the tracker? Hoping to get into UCB too

 

[WSBquant]

@Arbitrary which did you end up choosing?

And I saw that you didn’t apply to Columbia MFE. Any reason why you opted for CBS instead?

 

[drakaron]

CMU is better imo

 

[confusedperson]

Hi everyone,


I currently have to choose between getting my Master's at UChicago in Statistics or at Columbia (CBS) in Financial Economics.

I went to a ~T10 US university for undergraduate in pure math, but I developed interest in the quantitative finance industry relatively late and ended up not having any relevant internship experiences. Despite having multiple superdays for trader positions at prop trading firms, I did not receive an offer. Therefore, as I get my master's I intend to give another shot at breaking in, while accumulating more in-depth knowledge in math and finance.

My main interest still lies in trading, but as I am pursuing a more advanced degree, I am open to research roles as well (whether at prop shops or hedge funds). Therefore, regardless of whichever program I end up choosing, I plan on taking heavy application-based courses.

Courses at CBS seem more geared towards finance, although there seem to be plenty of opportunities to take ML and programming courses (I referred to quantnet reviews Columbia University Financial Economics (MSFE)).
On the other hand, UChicago offers more courses in traditional applied/theoretical math and stats. (Department of Statistics > Academic Catalog | The University of Chicago)

In conclusion, it appears that I'd able to build a more robust quantitative foundation with UChicago's program, although Columbia's is by no means not intensive. At the same time, I feel that Columbia's small class size (~25), CBS career service (although I read complaints about it), and the NYC location will offer advantages in job search.

Which one do you think I should choose? Thank you so much for all your input!

 

[Lukee]

How much of a factor it tuition? Columbia's FinEcon seems to be among the most expensive programs: Tuition & Financial Aid | Columbia Business School Academics

 

[confusedperson]

How much of a factor it tuition? Columbia's FinEcon seems to be among the most expensive programs: Tuition & Financial Aid | Columbia Business School Academics

Actually there is not a huge difference, tuition for FinEcon as you can see is around 69k, Chicago is around 60k. But COL in NYC should definitely be higher

 

[Lukee]

Actually there is not a huge difference, tuition for FinEcon as you can see is around 69k, Chicago is around 60k. But COL in NYC should definitely be higher

Tuition was poor choice of words on my end, I was just referring to total cost.

I saw on Chicago’s site that their program can be completed in 1 year while Columbia’s is 2 years so there’s a huge disparity in costs when you take that into consideration.

Chicago is very generous with scholarships for their MSFM program, I’m not sure if the same holds true for their MS statistics. Did they offer you any aid?