• C++ Programming for Financial Engineering
    Highly recommended by thousands of MFE students. Covers essential C++ topics with applications to financial engineering. Learn more Join!
    Python for Finance with Intro to Data Science
    Gain practical understanding of Python to read, understand, and write professional Python code for your first day on the job. Learn more Join!
    An Intuition-Based Options Primer for FE
    Ideal for entry level positions interviews and graduate studies, specializing in options trading arbitrage and options valuation models. Learn more Join!

Profile Evaluation : In a terrible situation

There are two purposes to GPAs. 1) measure of your quality as a student (drive, teamwork, consistency, etc), and 2) admissions profile data for prestige. In both cases, only actual paid/supervised/graded courses can count. The free online courses community is purely recreational. As far as I could tell from all my conversations with admissions staff and professors, only actual school work will count.
Actually those free courses finally provide you with a certificate containing your marks and the percentile in the course. There were several articles where it was also mentioned that the university students started following those online course instead of one offered at the university .Also finally some job offers were made to the TOP 1% of the class.Therefore such courses aren't purely recreational as what they may appear to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/e...ll-topple-campus-walls.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Consider Stanford’s experience: Last fall, 160,000 students in 190 countries enrolled in an Artificial Intelligence course taught by Mr. Thrun and Peter Norvig, a Google colleague. An additional 200 registered for the course on campus, but a few weeks into the semester, attendance at Stanford dwindled to about 30, as those who had the option of seeing their professors in person decided they preferred the online videos, with their simple views of a hand holding a pen, working through the problems.

Sorry for diverting the topic.
 
Shantanu Kumar
I am aware of these courses (taking one from Stanford this semester) and I am glad that schools are spreading knowledge. But the proliferation of free materials does not mean accredited universities must accept those courses. As happy as I am for those top 1% from the class, I wonder how many of them are current students to begin with and how many class participants can point to the class as the deciding factor that made the difference in employment.

People often want to break into lucrative industries with the lowest cost of entry, but that desire runs directly against the interest of incumbent. Medicine, law, engineering, and business all have established standards/career paths to regulate the dilution of their profession, and the limitation of courses offered is one of their many safeguards. If free materials are ever considered "comparable" to accredited courses, then the professions lose control on the influx of new entrants. These new entrants are very unlikely to be accepted by their more established predecessors, and the old geezers will most likely think you cheated.

University enrollment signals a number of things including your achievements since high school, affiliation to alumni bases, and research / placement related effort / expenses / network. In many profession, admissions to each programs is closely scrutinized by the affiliated professional association, accreditation boards, and practitioners. So if your GPA is not high, take more classes. If your GRE isn't good, retake it. If your w/e isn't relevant enough (for you to even make a case in your essay), apply for another job. Because if a school accepts you using some alternative measures (all the free courses you've completed) and overlook some traditional criteria (GPA, GRE, etc), practitioners and bystanders tend to call the quality of the school into question. So there is no shortcut. Do the work, and fix your mistakes.

But as I mentioned, I was merely rephrasing what I've heard from an admissions lady. Maybe the attitudes have changed since last year and my impression has become outdated. But if that is not the case, then I would not get my hopes up for those free courses making any impact on my admissions profile.
 
Hello All,

I have been following quantnet forums for a long time.I need some pro's to evaluate my situation as it is quite unique and suggest me improvement, as this time I did not get even a call from a single university.

Profile:

Education: Bachelors in Technology from Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (Mechanical)

GRE: Q 170, v 156.
GPA: 6.5 /10 really bad grades in mathematics except in programming in which I got Ex.

Work Exp: nearly 2 years in financial service start-up in India ( work related to valuation and risk management solutions across several asset classes)

One intern at HSBC, one foreign training and Google summer of code

one start-up (previously) and patent in field of dynamic route optimization (pending)

4+1 finance publications at international conference and journals.

Certification: CFA Level 2 candidate and FRM .

I was unable to get a call into any of the universities and I suspect it is because of my really really bad grades in mathematics.

Can anyone suggest how should I improve my profile so that I can get admission at a good university next year and what are the ways to compensate my low grades.

If I were you, I would find a Non-Degree program in Math and take some math course to overcome my weaknesses. GRE Q doesn't suffice!
 
bullion

I agree with everything you have to say. I just hope these free online courses could somehow break the monopoly of traditional college education which may seem highly unlikely in the near future.

Andy Nguyen
Already MIT/Stanford/Michigan/Berkeley are riding this wagon.
 
Shantanu Kumar
Actually, I don't know if free online courses are such good ideas. Let's say you took these free online courses. So you satisfied all the "pre-req" for MFEs. You send off your applications. All a sudden you realize EVERY APPLICANT has taken the class and gotten good grades. The same thing has happened in actuary exams, CFA, FRM. Now you need another way to distinguish yourself. The phenomenon is hardly new especially in China and India. They may not have internet video lectures, but they can purchase engineering books at substantial discount (or just photocopy), so basically EVERYONE read them. The result is increase in competition and depressed salaries across the labor market, and that's why you have so many foreign engineers/computer scientists who want to do MFE in the States.

The reason I say things are recreational (and hopefully stay that way) is because having such a monopoly is what distinguish you from everyone else. If everyone has a degree from Harvard, no one will care if it is Harvard. Part of the social value of higher education is to group people into different calibre/interest/path/clique, and exclusivity is exactly what makes any title/degree/institution desirable. And let's face it. Most people don't study for the pure joy of studying. They hope to accomplish / prove something to future employers for higher salary. Admissions office might no longer be able to bar you from enrolling/studying, but it also means that none of your personal essay / life story will matter except your grades. Are people ready for such raw competitions?

We have seen brand dilution from Columbia MSFE/MSOR/MAFN, and all the Rutger programs. The CMU MSCF Online option truly scares me, too. Even if you can justify such expansion with legit industry demands, it is unlikely such program will scale down to match softened business cycle (due to extra overhead) and you end up with a highly saturated market (fresh graduates without jobs and difficult to re-position displaced alumni). On the other hand, Baruch has done a fabulous job promoting and protecting its brand. It actually has less students now than during the 2004-2008 period, and their declining admissions rates just means they can pick and choose from more qualified candidates. In comparison to its overall university rankings (really not that high), the program is nothing short of a miracle (well, their faculty and students worked hard on it) and a true exception from the herd.

Eventually, the industry will retaliate with new exams, degrees, certificates, and you'll start chasing another credential/qualification through a bunch of new educators. Obviously, such competition is crucial for the advancement and evolution of any industry. But before we celebrate the liberation and access to quality educational materials, we should really examine the actual purpose and function of higher education in our society.
 
Shantanu KumarAs happy as I am for those top 1% from the class, I wonder how many of them are current students to begin with and how many class participants can point to the class as the deciding factor that made the difference in employment.
It's much easier to score top 1% in one of these online courses than if you were taking it at the school since the population is just so much larger. Most students at top schools are by construction already in the top 1%.
 
Yike Lu
There is some truth in that but actually its not quite true.On the other hand there were more 100% score in AI class and none at Stanford.The obvious answer for that is there were no programming assignments which were part of Stanford curriculum.As far as i remember those 1% were those who had score of 98% or above in aggregate which i think will make 1% at any university.
Out of 160,000 students who enrolled 23,000 completed the course successfully.​
Percentile was awarded among those who completed successfully.If i argue more i can say there were students from all over the world there as compared to the one at Stanford University which has TOP 1% of mostly american students.You also see this thing during higher studies admission in US universities where GPAs keep soaring due to applicants from all over the world
 
Back
Top