NYU MSMF NYU Master of Science program in Mathematics in Finance

[escheffer]

congrats on getting multiple offers! Just curious, what compels you to pick cChicago over Columbia?

Thank you! I think that the main points are summarized here in this thread: Columbia MFE vs. UChicago MSFM

It's not an easy choice though...

 

[bootstrap]

Thank you! I think that the main points are summarized here in this thread: Columbia MFE vs. UChicago MSFM

It's not an easy choice though...

Ah I see I see. Well Columbia has gotten a bad rep in recent years regarding its career services. That bit is true.

 

[latus_rectum]

I too have to make a decision between uchicago and columbia. Most probably would go to chicago. Both schools seems equal on other parameters, but chicago's low cost (both tuition and stay wise) is appealing to me. And chicago being a hub for HFTs also aligns with my career goals.

 

[bootstrap]

I too have to make a decision between uchicago and columbia. Most probably would go to chicago. Both schools seems equal on other parameters, but chicago's low cost (both tuition and stay wise) is appealing to me. And chicago being a hub for HFTs also aligns with my career goals.

What if Stanford gives you some good news on Monday? Lol

 

[latus_rectum]

What if Stanford gives you some good news on Monday? Lol

Well, that's highly unlikely . I don't have my hopes up after getting to know that there are like only 5-10 seats.

Saw that you got into Courant. All the best. Courant is one of the best places to study maths.

 

[bootstrap]

Well, that's highly unlikely . I don't have my hopes up after getting to know that there are like only 5-10 seats.

Saw that you got into Courant. All the best. Courant is one of the best places to study maths.

Well you never know, you might just be that lucky guy. Thanks! Good luck to you too.

 

[bootstrap]

Well, that's highly unlikely . I don't have my hopes up after getting to know that there are like only 5-10 seats.

Saw that you got into Courant. All the best. Courant is one of the best places to study maths.

Just curious though, why are you not considering Courant?

 

[bootstrap]

Thank you! I think that the main points are summarized here in this thread: Columbia MFE vs. UChicago MSFM

It's not an easy choice though...

May I ask you the same question too, escheffer? Why are you not considering Courant? In your eyes, what are the pros and cons about Courant that ultimately led you to discard it as a viable option? Eager to hear your thoughts, thanks!

 

[escheffer]

May I ask you the same question too, escheffer? Why are you not considering Courant? In your eyes, what are the pros and cons about Courant that ultimately led you to discard it as a viable option? Eager to hear your thoughts, thanks!

That’s actually a good question. Honestly, I think that, for quant finance, they are all of the same caliber, so I should consider Courant too.

However, given that (i) NYU’s reputation is a little smaller than UChicago and Columbia, (ii) there is nothing very relevant I could find that clearly distinguishes NYU MathFun from Columbia MFE and set it apart besides a maybe better CDO, (iii) the stronger aspects for Columbia when deciding between it and UChicago was reputation and location, and (iv) I still choose UChicago (as discussed in another thread), then there is no point of bringing NYU to the table again (NYU Courant’s decision letter was mas last one).

Still, had I not gotten into UChicago, I would definitely explore more Columbia MFE vs. NYU MathFin and talk to current students, alumni, and career development officers of both, because, by the start I would be almost 50-50 between both. I think the ultimate decision would come to the curriculum focus and flexibility, reputation, program duration, and whatever you find out from both CDO. I would bet that Columbia has made some changes to their CDO given the amount of negative feedback and their presentation to the newly admitted students (large focus on the CDO), so I would explore into that.

My personal choices were: Princeton > Berkeley = CMU = UChicago > NYU Courant = Columbia MFE > Cornell = Baruch > NYU Tandon = UCLA = GaTech > NCSU

 

[bootstrap]

That’s actually a good question. Honestly, I think that, for quant finance, they are all of the same caliber, so I should consider Courant too.

However, given that (i) NYU’s reputation is a little smaller than UChicago and Columbia, (ii) there is nothing very relevant I could find that clearly distinguishes NYU MathFun from Columbia MFE and set it apart besides a maybe better CDO, (iii) the stronger aspects for Columbia when deciding between it and UChicago was reputation and location, and (iv) I still choose UChicago (as discussed in another thread), then there is no point of bringing NYU to the table again (NYU Courant’s decision letter was mas last one).

Still, had I not gotten into UChicago, I would definitely explore more Columbia MFE vs. NYU MathFin and talk to current students, alumni, and career development officers of both, because, by the start I would be almost 50-50 between both. I think the ultimate decision would come to the curriculum focus and flexibility, reputation, program duration, and whatever you find out from both CDO. I would bet that Columbia has made some changes to their CDO given the amount of negative feedback and their presentation to the newly admitted students (large focus on the CDO), so I would explore into that.

My personal choices were: Princeton > Berkeley = CMU = UChicago > NYU Courant = Columbia MFE > Cornell = Baruch > NYU Tandon = UCLA = GaTech > NCSU

That's a very clear line of reasoning, thanks for your insight!

I am sure everyone of us has a different marking scheme. I am personally most concerned with job placements. A school's overall reputation wouldn't factor into my calculations all that much.

How times have changed! I have come across people who studied MFE a few years ago putting UCLA and Chicago in the same tier. Now many on Quantnet are treating Chicago as just behind Berkeley and CMU. They are doing something right for sure.

I am surprised that you put Baruch so far behind though. Many would treat it as being on par with Princeton, based on its career outcomes alone lol.

 

[escheffer]

That’s actually a good question. Honestly, I think that, for quant finance, they are all of the same caliber, so I should consider Courant too.

However, given that (i) NYU’s reputation is a little smaller than UChicago and Columbia, (ii) there is nothing very relevant I could find that clearly distinguishes NYU MathFun from Columbia MFE and set it apart besides a maybe better CDO, (iii) the stronger aspects for Columbia when deciding between it and UChicago was reputation and location, and (iv) I still choose UChicago (as discussed in another thread), then there is no point of bringing NYU to the table again (NYU Courant’s decision letter was mas last one).

Still, had I not gotten into UChicago, I would definitely explore more Columbia MFE vs. NYU MathFin and talk to current students, alumni, and career development officers of both, because, by the start I would be almost 50-50 between both. I think the ultimate decision would come to the curriculum focus and flexibility, reputation, program duration, and whatever you find out from both CDO. I would bet that Columbia has made some changes to their CDO given the amount of negative feedback and their presentation to the newly admitted students (large focus on the CDO), so I would explore into that.

My personal choices were: Princeton > Berkeley = CMU = UChicago > NYU Courant = Columbia MFE > Cornell = Baruch > NYU Tandon = UCLA = GaTech > NCSU

Just to clarify one thing about Baruch, which I guess many would ask why would I personally rank closer to Cornell than Princeton. I have no doubt they have one of the best programs education wise out there and the location is a great advantage. However,

1) Look at any university/college rank besides QuantNet and Risk.net (ex, THE, QS, US…). You can find GATech, CMU, etc., but where is Baruch? If you’re are not from the US, ask anyone if they know GATech, UCLA, NYU… they would definitely say they know or have already heard of them; they will almost certainly highly regard you if you say you’re going for a masters there. Now, tell them you are considering joining “Baruch”. What do you think they will say or think? (I’m pretty sure it is not that different in the US). So, apart from the quant finance industry in US, which KNOWS Baruch, I’m sorry, but reputation wise, it is behind Georgia Tech and UCLA, which are great schools too. And brand name MATTERS, especially if you decide not to continue in quant finance some day in the future, ascend to a more managerial or client facing role or return to your home country.

2) If UChicago, CMU, Columbia or Berkeley were to reduce their number of accepted students from 100-200ish to 40, so that to have 20-30 students in class while maintaining/improving their teaching and CDO quality, I have no doubt that, give it 3-5 years to achieve “stationary stage” and you will have all of them delivering the same stats parameters as Baruch and Princeton in QuantNet and RiskNet rankings (simply because of less students approved mathematically improves several parameters and also because selective acceptance increases yield, brings the best students, and the best students get the best career placement themselves (period). This, ranking placement demands strategy, and Baruch is doing absolutely great (I’m not saying this is wrong or unethical, because I don’t think it is, I just think that it is a strategy that worked for them and even brought good placement results). They just don’t do it because (i) money matters more for them (they are doing great as is and decreasing the number of acceptants would decrease revenue), and (ii) they know rankings are subjective (parameters and weights) and are only one part of the program’s success.

 

[escheffer]

That's a very clear line of reasoning, thanks for your insight!

I am sure everyone of us has a different marking scheme. I am personally most concerned with job placements. A school's overall reputation wouldn't factor into my calculations all that much.

How times have changed! I have come across people who studied MFE a few years ago putting UCLA and Chicago in the same tier. Now many on Quantnet are treating Chicago as just behind Berkeley and CMU. They are doing something right for sure.

I am surprised that you put Baruch so far behind though. Many would treat it as being on par with Princeton, based on its career outcomes alone lol.

No problem! I agree. Regarding Baruch, see above.

 

[bootstrap]

Just to clarify one thing about Baruch, which I guess many would ask why would I personally rank closer to Cornell than Princeton. I have no doubt they have one of the best programs education wise out there and the location is a great advantage.

1) Look at any university/college rank besides QuantNet and Risk.net (ex, THE, QS, US…). You can find GATech, CMU, etc., but where is Baruch? If you’re are not from the US, ask anyone if they know GATech, UCLA, NYU… they would definitely say they know or have already heard of them; they will almost certainly highly regard you if you say you’re going for a masters there. Now, tell them you are considering joining “Baruch”. What do you think they will say or think? (I’m pretty sure it is not that different in the US). So, apart from the quant finance industry in US, which KNOWS Baruch, I’m sorry, but reputation wise, it is behind Georgia Tech and UCLA, which are great schools too. And brand name MATTERS, especially if you decide not to continue in quant finance some day in the future, ascend to a more managerial or client facing role or return to your home country.

2) If UChicago, CMU, Columbia or Berkeley were to reduce their number of accepted students from 100-200ish to 40, so that to have 20-30 students in class while maintaining/improving their teaching and CDO quality. I have no doubt that, give it 3-5 years to achieve “stationary stage” and you will have all of them delivering the same stats parameters as Baruch and Princeton in QuantNet and RiskNet rankings (simply because of less students approved mathematically improves several parameters and also because selective acceptance increases yield, brings the best students, and the best students get the best career placement themselves (period). This, ranking placement demands strategy, and Baruch is doing absolutely great (I’m not saying this is wrong or unethical, because I don’t think it is, I just think that it is a strategy that worked for them and even brought good placement results). They just don’t do it because (i) money matters more (they are doing great as is and decreasing the number of acceptants would decrease revenue), and (ii) they know rankings are subjective (parameters and weights) and are only one part of the program’s success.

Fair point! Although I doubt there would be enough top tier hedge fund jobs out there to boost all of UChicago, CMU, Berkeley, Columbia into having average starting pay in the mid-200s, even if they were to reduce class sizes.

If I understand correctly these funds primarily hire from the PhD pool and the HYPSM undergrad pool anyway. Very few fall through the cracks into the hands of MFE students.

 

[escheffer]

Fair point! Although I doubt there would be enough top tier hedge fund jobs out there to boost all of UChicago, CMU, Berkeley, Columbia into having average starting pay in the mid-200s, even if they were to reduce class sizes.

If I understand correctly these funds primarily hire from the PhD pool and the HYPSM undergrad pool anyway. Very few fall through the cracks into the hands of MFE students.

I don’t know… if you have an average of 140k for 100ish students, the average for the top 20-30 students wouldn’t be far from the mid-200, especially if you consider the effect of outliers and that you would start to get a shift from the best students (which secure the best salaries) towards them gradually as these get more selective in admissions and improve rankings stats consequently.

 

[escheffer]

But anyways, my conclusion regarding Baruch is that, if you get to be accepted there, you have high changes of getting a $200k+ salary if you good to any of the top tier schools (Baruch is very good at selecting the best applicants), especially if it is one with a good CDO or you have good contacts. That is, if you got into Baruch, you don’t need Baruch, Baruch needs you, thus, I would go to one with better worldwide reputation, which justify my personal choice lol

 

[bootstrap]

I don’t know… if you have an average of 140k for 100ish students, the average for the top 20-30 students wouldn’t be far from the mid-200, especially if you consider the effect of outliers and that you would start to get a shift from the best students (which secure the best salaries) towards them gradually as these get more selective in admissions and improve rankings stats consequently.

There are only so many outliers in any given year lol. And I think most of those outliers would pick Princeton or Baruch, for better or worse.

CMU has always been the most generous with its employment stats (link below). I think it's safe to assume that about 4~5 people in CMU (and by extension Berkeley and Columbia) get those top jobs each year. Now, cutting their class sizes by half would definitely help with the average pay, given that they would still be able to keep these 4~5 outliers in their classes. But boosting it by 100k? I don't think the math would work out.

https://www.cmu.edu/mscf/careers/employment-reports/2023-mscf-employment-report.pdf

 

[escheffer]

There are only so many outliers in any given year lol. And I think most of those outliers would pick Princeton or Baruch, for better or worse.

CMU has always been the most generous with its employment stats (link below). I think it's safe to assume that about 4~5 people in CMU (and by extension Berkeley and Columbia) get those top jobs each year. Now, cutting their class sizes by half would definitely help with the average pay, given that they would still be able to keep these 4~5 outliers in their classes. But boosting it by 100k? I don't think the math would work out.

https://www.cmu.edu/mscf/careers/employment-reports/2023-mscf-employment-report.pdf

Yes, but you are considering that there would not be a shift in the quality of applicants accepting offers once the university starts to become more selective in applications. If someone today gets accepted in Princeton, Baruch and CMU, this person would probably go to Princeton or Baruch. They are more selective, better ranked. Each year, say you have 60 people graduating and securing jobs in the mid-200k. Most are the ones who ended up choosing Princeton or Baruch.

My thesis is that, these top applicants are 90% responsible for their own career placement success not because they graduated from Princeton, but because they’d got accepted from Princeton in the first place. They already had a strong background that, coupled with a masters from any other top tier like CMU, Berkeley or UChicago, would still be equivalent/enough to secure that high paying job. So, if you get a higher fraction of these best applicants to go to either Berkeley, Columbia, UChicago, or CMU, and cut out the weakest applicants, boom: you would have very similar ranking parameters and placement numbers.

How do you get that? Gradually decreasing acceptance rate and number of students over a few years time horizon. Why don’t they do that? Tuition revenue.

Conclusion, if you are one of those strong applicants that got into Baruch, just keep up with your own standards, do your homework and have a plan at any top tier program, that you’d be equally well. As I saw another person commenting in another post, at this level it doesn’t really matter which school you choose, it is a matter of personal preference. The career success depends 90% on the individual, not on the program (of course, if you get accepted in Baruch, don’t go to a tier 3 school lol)

 

[bootstrap]

Yes, but you are considering that there would not be a shift in the quality of applicants accepting offers once the university starts to become more selective in applications. If someone today gets accepted in Princeton, Baruch and CMU, this person would probably go to Princeton or Baruch. They are more selective, better ranked. Each year, say you have 60 people graduating and securing jobs in the mid-200k. Most are the ones who ended up choosing Princeton or Baruch.

My thesis is that, these top applicants are 90% responsible for their own career placement success not because they graduated from Princeton, but because they’d got accepted from Princeton in the first place. They already had a strong background that, coupled with a masters from any other top tier like CMU, Berkeley or UChicago, would still be equivalent/enough to secure that high paying job. So, if you get a higher fraction of these best applicants to go to either Berkeley, Columbia, UChicago, or CMU, and cut out the weakest applicants, boom: you would have very similar ranking parameters and placement numbers.

How do you get that? Gradually decreasing acceptance rate and number of students over a few years time horizon. Why don’t they do that? Tuition revenue.

Conclusion, if you are one of those strong applicants that got into Baruch, just keep up with your own standards, do your homework and have a plan at any top tier program, that you’d be equally well. As I saw another person commenting in another post, at this level it doesn’t really matter which school you choose, it is a matter of personal preference. The career success depends 90% on the individual, not on the program (of course, if you get accepted in Baruch, don’t go to a tier 3 school lol)

Yeah, sometimes it's the chicken and the egg. Is it the school? Or is it the person? But I reckon that even for a top talent who's qualified for all the Citadel or RenTech jobs, it would serve him/her better to get to a higher tier school.

First, there's the signaling effect to employers that this person is the real deal: "see, even Princeton admitted him." And I think some employers do treat these top programs as "target schools" in a sense.

Second, you get access to an alumni network of equally capable outliers.

If your theory were correct though, then these schools would need to draw from Baruch and Princeton, causing the starting salaries of those two to decrease. So if your scenario really did play out, maybe all 5 schools would reach an equilibrium of 200k-ish? lol

In any case, I am pretty sure we won't see that happen. Being selective with the number of admits is kind of a game that only HYPSM are willing to play. Other programs are more sensitive to the bottom line. XD

 

[escheffer]

Yeah, sometimes it's the chicken and the egg. Is it the school? Or is it the person? But I reckon that even for a top talent who's qualified for all the Citadel or RenTech jobs, it would serve him/her better to get to a higher tier school.

First, there's the signaling effect to employers that this person is the real deal: "see, even Princeton admitted him." And I think some employers do treat these top programs as "target schools" in a sense.

Second, you get access to an alumni network of equally capable outliers.

If your theory were correct though, then these schools would need to draw from Baruch and Princeton, causing the starting salaries of those two to decrease. So if your scenario really did play out, maybe all 5 schools would reach an equilibrium of 200k-ish? lol

In any case, I am pretty sure we won't see that happen. Being selective with the number of admits is kind of a game that only HYPSM are willing to play. Other programs are more sensitive to the bottom line. XD

I agree in parts. It is indeed like the chicken and the egg, and strong applicants could well benefit from a higher tier school. That’s why I would choose Princeton over Berkeley or UChicago. I just don’t think Baruch is worth it because of what I said previously. And as I said, if you got into Baruch, you don’t need Baruch, Baruch needs you.

Also, if my theory is right, then there would be a leveling in salary levels, indeed. But that would not happen in practice, because none of these other top tier schools would be willing to decrease the number of applicants simply to increase in rankings - let alone all of them together.