COMPARE Master Programs Comparison: Which quant program to choose?

[CJ_D]

thanks for replying, could you tell me more about it? like, why say so?

JHU Financial Math is your best bet out of the 3.

 

[Bipeumania]

Hi everyone, I've been accepted to both these programs and would greatly appreciate your insights on their respective pros and cons.

A bit about my background : degree in applied maths (equivalent to a master's degree) from Ecole Polytechnique (top French engineering school). Would like to work as QR in the buy-side.

Thank you !

 

[escheffer]

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.

My opinion is also that personal curriculum and preparation matters more than simply the university you've got your masters (provided that they are the same tier). For UCB, CMU, CU, NYU and UChicago, I don't think there is much difference in terms of landing an interview or education-wise. It would probably go to personal preference and costs. CMU and UCB salaries are better because the best applicants eventually went there, not because these applicants did CMU or UCB. It's the other way around.

 

[escheffer]

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.

Keep in mind that UChicago's MSFM curriculum has only 4 mandatory subjects (all with great faculty) and the rest are electives, so you can tailor your own curriculum to your career goals, which in my opinion values more (besides the fact that people there can take classes from the world-class Statistics, Econ and Business schools as well).

 

[weab]

thanks for replying, could you tell me more about it? like, why say so?

if you are talking about the in person program then it has the best employment stats according to the rankings. USC is a scam do not go there. You can make an argument for UIUC but none of these programs can guarantee you a BB job let alone hedge fund.

 

[lighnity]

Hello Everyone!

I hope you have been accepted from the MFE programs that you dreamed of, and if not, I hope you get acceptance letters from there asap.
I have received admissions to Boston MSMFT and Stevens MFE, and I have had difficulty deciding where to enroll.
I only have a few days to make the final decision, so it would be really helpful if you could provide some insights on the two programs.

Some background about me: studied Economics + Computer Science in my undergrad, have full-time experience for 1.5 years in quantitative research(mostly handling factor models/portfolio optimization), International student

My goal is to 1) get a quant job in the US right after my master's graduation, 2) ideally QR in sell-side banks, and 3) finally, get a Macro QR role in hedge funds.

Heae are some information I have collected:


Reputation & alum network:

• BU undergrad has a better reputation than Stevens, but their graduate business school rankings are similar in the US News ranking.
• Based on BU's historical Quantnet ranking and LinkedIn, the BU alumni network would be great, but Stevens's ranking has been growing since 2021, and their BS Quantitative Finance program outcome has been amazing. Some of them choose an acceleration master's program in their school, so on Wall Street, the influence of both programs would be similar or not that different I guess.

Employment statistics:

• According to Quantnet's job placement data, BU's employment rate has been declining since 2022. I'm also confused by the discrepancy between Quantnet's job placement data and their webpage job report data.
• Stevens's employment rate has been growing. However, I'm unsure how many roles are related to the quant research role.

Career Service:

• BU's career service includes a resume/CV coach, job search strategies, a mock interview, and interaction with industry experts.
• Similarly, Stevens's career service provides personalized support through resume reviews, interview preparation, industry advice, internship and career leads, networking opportunities, and more.
• I heard BU's director changed in 2021, and I'm not sure about BU director's industry connection.
• Stevens's director also changed in 2019, and the director seems to have many industry connections since he has worked in various IBs on Wall Street. But I'm not sure program director's connection would be a major factor...

Curriculum:

• Many people have said that BU's curriculum is quite rigorous mathematically, and their theoretical side is balanced with the practical one since some lecturers come from the industry side.
• Stevens curriculum, as they said, has been renovated to provide the most relevant skills and information. Thus, there are many electives, and I like the core courses (Stochastic Calculus, Pricing, and Hedging, Computational Methods in Finance, Portfolio Theory, and Advanced Derivatives). But there's no review about Stevens's recent curriculum, so I'm wondering how hard these courses are to get me through, landing me into Hedge Funds eventually. (I know with an MFE degree, it's hard to get quant researcher roles in Hedge Funds just after graduation, but I want to know at least the necessary knowledge that I have to know for that role)

Location:

• This is a huge point for me unfortunately. You can criticize me for this point, lol. I've never lived in NYC and only visited there last year. I really liked that moment, and I want to live there for at least a year. When I look at Boston pictures, I feel bored. Even though I can come back to NYC after graduating from BU, I don't want to postpone because I could eventually be stuck to the Boston area if I get a job there. But if there's any weak point in Stevens MFE compared to Boston MSMFE, I'll enroll in MSMFT.
• Besides my affection for NYC, I want to start my first quant job at Bulge bracket banks because I heard these employees support visas well. So, because of this, attending the university near NYC and doing extensive networking would be better.

In short, I have concerns to BU MSMFT about its low ranking and job statistics in recent years, and its Boston location.
Stevens MFE, about the low reputation and the lack of recent curriculum reviews.

I would greatly appreciate any additional information you could provide to help me make a decision, even if it's a small or obvious one.

Thanks for reading this and have a good day!

 

[lighnity]

Thanks very much for your vote! It would be helpful if you write any reason

 

[arr]

Hello everyone,

I'm thrilled to have been accepted into both Stanford's ICME and CMU's MSCF programs but struggling to decide between them.

I am curious about the career prospects and support services at Stanford, as I've heard rumors about them not being very good.

A bit about me: I studied math in the UK for undergrad, interested in ML/stats. Currently interested in becoming a quant researcher (leaning buy side), primarily in roles that apply stat/ML techniques to finance. I lack formal CS training, which I hope to gain in grad school. Post graduation, I aim to get a job in the U.S., and while I'm not considering a PhD or moving abroad at this time, I do not have visa concerns. A small point regarding location, my preference is to work in the southern U.S., but I am open to starting my career in other places.

For programs: I'm drawn to MSCF for its comprehensive curriculum that seems well-suited for preparing for quant roles and its good career service.
Conversly, Stanford doesn’t offer a lot courses in option pricing etc.(which I am not sure if they are very important for buyside roles). However, I like Stanford’s heavy emphasis on data science and programming. Stanford could also open doors to working in startups or tech in Silicon Valley. I don’t think I will get those choices in CMU. Although I personally have a stronger interest in buy-side quant, I could also see myself working for startups or as a machine learning engineer in some tech companies.

I opened this poll and I'd appreciate any insights into these programs, especially regarding career outcomes and experiences with their respective career services. Thank you very much for your help!

 

[Lukee]

Would you mind sharing more about your profile? I'm interested to see what kind of candidate Stanford ICME accepts

 

[arr]

Would you mind sharing more about your profile? I'm interested to see what kind of candidate Stanford ICME accepts

I did one long summer intern and several small interns, together with some research in uni (no publications)

 

[arr]

Anyone give some specific reasons for choosing each program?

 

[nlgh]

Hello,

From what I gathered, you aim to get a more formal training in CS. From my research of both programs, it seemed as if Stanford's ICME is a little more math oriented, and CMU provides a lot of computational courses.
Regarding quant roles, I gathered from past admits to Stanford that there are people that go into quant research/trading but a lot of them usually go to data science/financial roles, as well as startups, more so than regular quant. In comparison, CMU's program is a little more tailored towards quant.

I think you should choose the program that you think fits more with your liking, as both are top programs. One thing to add is that CMU's program is present in all rankings, at near top spots, whereas ICME is not. I am not sure of the reason but it could be something to take into account.

 

[arr]

Hello,

From what I gathered, you aim to get a more formal training in CS. From my research of both programs, it seemed as if Stanford's ICME is a little more math oriented, and CMU provides a lot of computational courses.
Regarding quant roles, I gathered from past admits to Stanford that there are people that go into quant research/trading but a lot of them usually go to data science/financial roles, as well as startups, more so than regular quant. In comparison, CMU's program is a little more tailored towards quant.

I think you should choose the program that you think fits more with your liking, as both are top programs. One thing to add is that CMU's program is present in all rankings, at near top spots, whereas ICME is not. I am not sure of the reason but it could be something to take into account.

Thanks for the comment!

 

[nicholas_chen]

My background is Imperial maths undergrad and got accepted by both programs but haven't decided which offer should I accpet. My career prefence is more towards quant research than quant trade. So far, I only gathered some information about both programs piece by piece.

NYU Courant: Seem to dive deeper in maths and better reputation for the career service?

Columbia MAFN: Better title?

Any insight or advice would be super helpful to me and thank you so much in advance!

 

[tomisc]

I am also interested in both of these programs, but decided id prefer CU MAFN over NYU MathFin. Personally, I think that the Columbia program offers more flexibility in terms of courses you can take outside of the required courses, ie taking other courses offered by the math/stats department as electives. Whereas with NYU MathFin, there’s a few set electives that you can choose from and I got the impression they aren’t really open to students taking other courses. For me, this was a pretty important factor.

My assumption on NYU MathFin could be wrong, and would be nice to hear some thoughts on this from alumni.

 

[anonymously]

Hi, I'm too confused between these two options.

I am looking for any and all opinions, view, reviews or comparison on the same specially when it comes to Placement, Career Events, Exposure, Alumni Network, Student Life etc'

My deadline for accepting these offers is 1st of May and I need to make a decision before the same.
I urge you to help me out here

Thanks a lot!

 

[iamsorry]

Hi
A bit about my background - Trader for a proprietary trading firm (US and UK commodities) since the past 3 years. Want to broaden my horizon in the field of finance. Later want to work in a HFT firm.

Cambridge (20% Scholarship) vs Columbia (No Scholarship). Tuition cost and living in NYC will literally cost 1.7x comparatively.
I am really confused between these two programs. Columbia's program is quant focused and Cambridge's is a bit balanced. I am not very good with programming. Which one do you reckon fits my aspirations the best.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Figure out where you want to work after school. London or NYC? Cost of living in NYC is higher but salary will also be higher.
Getting a job out of Columbia MFE would probably be more challenging since you will be competing against thousands of other candidates from many other programs.
If you are not good at programming, let's face it right now. You will get more job opportunities if you are better than the other graduates in coding. You will be interviewed and tested your coding ability anyway before you get an offer.
Why don't you take the C++ or Python course we offer here? They are the best on the market to prepare people for the quant industry.

 

[Rey_De_Leon]

I saw quite a few people with MFin Cambridge background (was even considering it myself) but honestly not sure if it helped them to break into the industry (especially HFT). While the Mfin programme content is ok, for Algo/Quant roles most people would still look for MMath /Statistics/Engineering from Ox/Cambridge/Imperial rather than MFin. Columbia MFE seems like a better option (and presumably more expensive) especially if you are targeting US market.

P.s. I had an interview with the candidate from Columbia once and it was all nice until he was asked to do a Python test...

 

[Andy Nguyen]

What @Rey_De_Leon said is true. If you want to break into a more technical role where stats/machine learning/coding is involved, you need much more than what the MFin program can give.
Even if we assume the MFE programs in the US are more technical than the MFin programs, the graduates need to differentiate themselves during the screening/interview process. In the US, it's brainteaser, online coding, etc so it's a wise investment to equip yourself with a stronger coding ability when your competitors don't.
Consider you are paying 100K on average for a degree in the US, don't cheap out on the inexpensive cost to make you a stand out from the crowded market place.