Thank you so much for your response. Definitely some very good points for MIT. Only thing that kind of bothers me is --
- I feel like London is a better city than Boston (both from a lifestyle perspective and from a networking standpoint)
- I feel like Imperial in London is nearly as well regarded as MIT so I'm not sure the added value of MIT is that much but I don't really know.
Anyways thank you so much for your insi
Hi,
You are right to point out the London vs Boston thing. Lifestyle wise, London is arguably the 2nd best in the world; for a student, it is the best *student* city in the world, if you have money. Networking wise, at the face of it, you are right to point out that London is better at that standpoint, however there's 3 things to note here:
1. If you choose to study at Imperial, it will be harder to network outside of their prepared company presentations because you will spend lots of time academically doing MSc Math and Finance. Unless you already have previous experience (internship/full time), you will be adding extra stress to find a job while doing your academics. Imperial is a "live, breathe, and die for your program" sort of thing, unless you go to the business school, which is easier.
2. American universities are prime for networking, that's what university is about in America tbh. In US Colleges, you will need to network and so you will for sure nurture that skill while London . Sure, I agree that Boston < London You learn more practical and relevant skills in American colleges, which you can then take back to London. Practical skills and networking are much more important. Also at MIT, your lecturers will be full of people who have worked (or are still working) in huge institutions. Imperial does not give that opportunity as much as MIT does.
3. Going to Imperial MSc Math Fin won't give you a lifestyle lol.
To your point about Imperial being as well regarded as MIT in London:
1. I agree to an extent with this sentiment. I know people in London who has said that Imperial is ranked no.1 in the world despite there being no ranking to suggest so. In the usual case that Imperial is no.2, MIT is the one that is no.1, based off QS rankings. I would not look too much into rankings. I would look more into the networking opportunities and relevant knowledge to learn.
2. Imperial has, realistically, only been relevant for 10 years at best, and that's mainly because of it's QS rankings. Without that ranking, it does not have that much of a talking point. It is not that sort of thing that people for generations have been talking about. Not like oxbridge, hypsm, and the other ivy leagues. Not even LSE. Reputation in finance wise, Imperial is not even on par with LSE when it comes to finance. I was wide awake when UCL was ranked and considered better than Imperial, until Imperial overtook them only recently.
3. MIT will add greater value to your CV. As the quantnet saying goes, "it's MIT". You never hear that with Imperial. Not even with Oxbridge.
4. Course wise, at Imperial you may be forced to go quant because the things you learn in that program is not as applicable in tradfi. Quant is a whole different level and based off what you said, I assume you don't need it. Might I add you learn these quant courses at MIT, just choose the Financial Engineering or Capital Markets concentration. You will learn these while not going through the hellish (and honestly unnecessary) rigors of Imperial.
Remember: you are trying to get relevant skills and a top university name to get a job to put food on the table. Telling people you did a hard course at imperial won't put food on the table. It will put tears of suffering and maybe mental health problems instead. Take the potential opportunity to be away from the UK for 1.5 years. Refresh your mindset and gain real skills, not flex about the Girsanov Theorem. Come back with an MIT degree and make sure you dominate the City of London.
...and who knows, with an MIT degree, you may even start your own company in the future
