COMPARE MIT MFin Vs. Columbia MFE

[charlesc]

I am here asking dumb questions again. Of course I've done my own homework, but I just like to pick others' brains

I am pretty sure I do not want to be a hardcore quant:
1. My programming skill is passable, but not really outstanding, and I do not intend to spend a big portion of my career writing codes.
2. My maths is O.K, but definitely not up to the standards of some elite Chinese/French schools. It also terrifies me to think the prospect of competing against physics/CS phd in technical fields.
3. I have better motivation in an interactive environment, tracking real-time events and talking with people. Flow-trading or risk management thus sound more appealing to me.
4. I am planning to work in Asia-Pacific, where MIT Sloan may be a more helpful, prestigious brand name in job-searching, compared to Columbia engineering. Yes, I am practial, and vain.

(The difference in costs is not a major concern for me. I will live with a relative in Boston if I attend MIT, this saving will reduce the cost of Mfin to a level comparable to living in NYC and attending Columbia.)

Given this, you shouldn't be surprised that I am inclined toward the "philosophy" of MIT Mfin, i.e. its flexibility, its customizability, its affliation with Business School, blah blah blah. On the other hand, Columbia MFE has placed many people into my "target jobs", so I reckon that a nominally "hardcore quant-prep" program like Columbia can also help me fulfill my aspiration.

So, what do you think about the trade-off between:
(a) Mfin's "soft" advantage
(b) Columbia's academic rigor and established course structure

I know (a) may be more like a result of propaganda, a marketing hype that simply turns "disorganization" into "flexibility", and turns "cashing in Sloan brand" into "synergy".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Does Mfin really better fit my above-mentioned personal conditions? Or am I, as I am now suspecting, actually an impressionable consumer fallen prey to Sloan's money-making, deceptively-packaged program?

[2] How do you compare the selectivity of these 2 programs?


Any advice will be appreciated!

 

[Jordan Ledvina]

Hi Everybody. I got into my top two choices, MIT and Columbia (thanks G-d). Now I have to decide which one is a better fit. When I originally applied, I wanted to do something in Quantitative Finance. However recently, I've been more interested in the entrepreneurial side of finance, and have become more interested in start ups and investment capital.

It seems MIT in Boston in the natural choice since it is start-up central and there's lots of activity there, and they have big business plan competitions, but in the interview with Columbia they said that if I was interested in entrepreneurship, they had what to offer.

I'd appreciate any input which could help me come to a more informed decision.

 

[gradaplicant]

I have been wondering the same things. Have so far been accepted into both programs and am thinking about a similar career track as you (flow or prop trading, possibly a broker).

 

[charlesc]

I have been wondering the same things. Have so far been accepted into both programs and am thinking about a similar career track as you (flow or prop trading, possibly a broker).

I think Columbia is a kind of "over-preparation" for my job aspirations, while, regarding some other aspects, it may be lacking (e.g. "soft finance" like accounting, macroecon, etc). I know trading divisions often hire from Columbia, but I guess the hires are mostly used as coding experts rather than trading assistants. It is not my ideal, direct path. As a matter of fact (a focused, in-depth program) as well as others' perception (oh he is a quant, let's use more of his quant skills, I can do the trading), MFE may be an asset as well as a liability.

Of course, something like algo trading or analytics are much better suited to MFE.

Another concern is that the Columbia FE brand is too diluted... Some smaller, international companies may not understand that the 70 MFE students are not the same as 150 OR(FE concentration) students. While Sloan may be cashing in their prestige, I think Columbia is no more responsibile: Columbia has been expanding MFE and psudo-MFE programs as well, motivated mostly by profit factors (how they direct so many rejects into MSOR truly sounds troubling and quite fishy).

For now, I still lean towards MIT. The deadline is in 2 weeks.

Kindly let me know which you are going to attend.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

With MIT MFin, you have a better idea of the kind of position/salary their graduates are going to get. They published placement reports for the last 2 cohorts.
With Columbia MFE, you are dealing with a lack of information so you are making an uninformed decision. Their website lists a 95% placement of 2011 graduates with the big caveat that it is based on the number of correspondents (without stating how many responded) so you can't account for the whole class and don't know what happened to those that didn't respond to the survey.

 

[charlesc]

It seems MIT in Boston in the natural choice since it is start-up central and there's lots of activity there, and they have big business plan competitions, but in the interview with Columbia they said that if I was interested in entrepreneurship, they had what to offer.

I'd appreciate any input which could help me come to a more informed decision.

But Boston, Business Schoo, flexibility in curriculum do sound more conducive to entrepreneurship. NYC as a center of the Big Corporate World, a proper, well-structured quant program do sound more like gateway to the "establishment". Of course, I am just using superficial reasoning.

 

[charlesc]

With MIT MFin, you have a better idea of the kind of position/salary their graduates are going to get. They published placement reports for the last 2 cohorts.
With Columbia MFE, you are dealing with a lack of information so you are making an uninformed decision. Their website lists a 95% placement of 2011 graduates with the big caveat that it is based on the number of correspondents (without stating how many responded) so you can't account for the whole class and don't know what happened to those that didn't respond to the survey.

Exactly, as I mentioned in my other post about MIT interview, the Sloan Admission Officers were very frank, with no trouble at all discussing that report with me. I even challenged her on the issue of International Student starting pay, she simply clarified, not irritated at all. However, I am not sure whether such transparency is inspired by more confidence and pride, or whether it is simply because Sloan, as a business school, carries itself with more grace (their interviewers are impressively convincing and likeable).

 

[gradaplicant]

(The difference in costs is not a major concern for me. I will live with a relative in Boston if I attend MIT, this saving will reduce the cost of Mfin to a level comparable to living in NYC and attending Columbia.)

Can I come and live with your relative as well?

The only thing that is putting a doubt in my mind about MIT is the tuition. Columbia estimates that the total cost of their program plus living expenses is 95.000 USD, while we have 108.000 USD for MIT.

I still thing I will choose MIT, in most part because of the Sloan name and the program seems to be a better fit. Guess the 13.000 USD will just be an investment in the MIT-Sloan name that hopefully will pay off!

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Exactly, as I mentioned in my other post about MIT interview, the Sloan Admission Officers were very frank, with no trouble at all discussing that report with me. I even challenged her on the issue of International Student starting pay, she simply clarified, not irritated at all. However, I am not sure whether such transparency is inspired by more confidence and pride, or whether it is simply because Sloan, as a business school, carries itself with more grace (their interviewers are impressively convincing and likeable).

My post wasn't meant as endorsement of either program. I just want to point out the difference in nature and culture of both programs.
It's normally expected of B-school programs to publish their placement stats annually. In fact, there is a standard in reporting that these MBA programs adhere to.
So don't be surprised to see MIT MFin, UCB MFE, UCLA MFE reported detailed stats. They aren't being friendly to you or do you a favor. They are just following their Business school guidelines.

On the other hand, the rest of MFE crowd (maybe except Baruch MFE) does not have that policy/guideline to follow and it's not in their culture to publish the detailed placement stats. Columbia MFE published it because it's been asked over and over by their applicants. Don't be surprised if many of these MFE programs do not know their own placement stats because they just don't keep track of it and don't have dedicated career services.

 

[Kamesh]

Those stats for MIT are based on 2011 figures of around 70 Students. This year for the 2012 batch the placement has to happen for 120 students and many are fresh out of under-grad or less than 1-2 yrs of experience. MBA finance and MS Fin guys struggle for the same jobs from same companies. Have you guys included that factor in your calculation. Just my .02 dollars...