Profile Review for MIT Mfin (2026 intake)

[not_iuc]

Hi! I only wanted to know thoughts about my chances for getting an interview for MIT's program because that's the only US school I'm applying to.

Demographic : 21F, Indian
Target Industry: Healthcare investment banking
Undergrad: Biomedical Engineering from a T5 IIT (GPA: 8/10), I graduate in 2026
GMAT Score: 755 (100 percentile)
Work Ex. :
1. I initially wanted to work in biomedical research so in summer of sophomore year, I interned at a well-known research facility in Europe (I'd won a pretty competitive fellowship for it).
2. Business research/ founder's office of a small startup
3. Financial Advisory intern at a Big 4 last summer

Biggest concerns/ red-flags: Coursework and grades; I have taken a lot of quantitative courses and can code but my grades in Linear Algebra and Multivariable Calc are bad (C in both). This is a bigger issue in general where my gpa was shit in the first 3 semesters because of a few medical issues (which was when I took both of these courses) but there's a visible upward trajectory after that and in the past 3 semesters, I have an almost perfect gpa. I was wondering if there's anything I could/should do to make up for this. I imagine that a high GMAT score does slightly offset my gpa in general but I'm anxious about grades in specific courses that MIT seems to care about.

Thanks!

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Welcome to Quantnet.
There are ways to compensate for your low GPA. This is from another Indian applicant but he got into another program not MIT. Your profile may be a better fit for MIT given the flexible courses choice and career path.

Thread 'From Low CGPA to My Dream School: Columbia MAFN, NYU MFE, and More'

3/24/25

Hello QuantNet Community,

I wanted to share my journey to getting accepted into Columbia's MAFN program, NYU's MFE, NCSU's Mathematical Finance, and Nanyang Business School's MFE in Singapore. I'm still waiting on decisions from Columbia's MFE and GaTech's QCF. My hope is that this post helps those who feel limited by a low CGPA but are passionate about breaking into the world of quantitative finance.

My Biggest Drawback

• Low CGPA: I had a CGPA of 2.98/4.00 in both my undergrad and grad studies.
• Poor Math Grades: I had a B- in Mathematics 3 and a...

• Leggoo MFE
• Replies: 23
• Forum: Articles

• 
• 

 

[not_iuc]

Welcome to Quantnet.
There are ways to compensate for your low GPA. This is from another Indian applicant but he got into another program not MIT. Your profile may be a better fit for MIT given the flexible courses choice and career path.

Thread 'From Low CGPA to My Dream School: Columbia MAFN, NYU MFE, and More'

3/24/25

Hello QuantNet Community,

I wanted to share my journey to getting accepted into Columbia's MAFN program, NYU's MFE, NCSU's Mathematical Finance, and Nanyang Business School's MFE in Singapore. I'm still waiting on decisions from Columbia's MFE and GaTech's QCF. My hope is that this post helps those who feel limited by a low CGPA but are passionate about breaking into the world of quantitative finance.

My Biggest Drawback

• Low CGPA: I had a CGPA of 2.98/4.00 in both my undergrad and grad studies.
• Poor Math Grades: I had a B- in Mathematics 3 and a...

• Leggoo MFE
• Replies: 23
• Forum: Articles

• 
• 

Thanks for sharing! I'm unsure if anything significant is feasible now given the timeline but as things are, what would you say my chances are for being interviewed at MIT?

 

[Andy Nguyen]

What are other programs you apply to? What is your career goal?

 

[not_iuc]

What are other programs you apply to? What is your career goal?

I'd like to get into either Healthcare IB or consulting. I'm applying to programs in Europe that I know I'm more competitve for (LBS MFA, LSE, HEC Paris's MIF) but only applying to MIT in the US.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

I see that you target the more traditional MFin program. In that case, you may want to look into the new Chicago Booth MiF program that just opened last year. I heard good things from alumni but haven't seen the first placement report yet.

 

[arohan]

I would strongly recommend connecting with alumni from the program and talk to them about your career goals. While MIT MFin does market itself as a generalist finance program, the vast majority of their candidates, especially internationals, end up in quant aligned jobs, not investment banking.

 

[Yuvraj Chauhan]

Just adding to what Arohan said above, I think as per MIT's latest employment report, ~40% of folks went into non-quant roles. I'd say that is pretty sizeable, and considering it is a batch with ~90% internationals, it represents a sizeable section of folks moving into non-quant finance roles. So yeah, MIT does look like a good choice

 

[arohan]

Just adding to what Arohan said above, I think as per MIT's latest employment report, ~40% of folks went into non-quant roles. I'd say that is pretty sizeable, and considering it is a batch with ~90% internationals, it represents a sizeable section of folks moving into non-quant finance roles. So yeah, MIT does look like a good choice

I would take employment statistics with a pretty sizeable pinch of salt. Employment statistics are always open to a lot of interpretation and all programs use that room in a way it makes their reports look better. Most programs would classify quant researcher at, say, JPMC and a quant researcher at Citadel as ‘quant researcher’ but there’s a world of difference between the two.

A few points to highlight with your particular point is that the program only placed 64% of its candidates in the US. A huge chunk of the non-US jobs are within the candidates’ home countries. So, if the OP is looking for a job in the US, your math is off. Also, the report has the classification ‘IBD/Transaction Advisory’, not Investment Banking Analyst/Associate. IBD/Transaction Advisory can mean to include a huge number of roles besides a front-office IB analyst role. Its always a good idea to talk to alum and candidates pursuing the program and are pursuing jobs that you wish to work in after graduation to get an objective view of employment outcomes.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

A rule of thumb is to always verify the placement report. It's easy to do when you can reach many graduates on LinkedIn. I heard many cases where a program will categorize recent graduates who not responding to their survey as employed. Go figure.
As applicant, you have the right to ask question and expect transparent answer. If they don't or can't answer to your satisfaction, enter at your own risk. After all this is easily the largest investment that many students ever spent on.

 

[arohan]

A rule of thumb is to always verify the placement report. It's easy to do when you can reach many graduates on LinkedIn. I heard many cases where a program will categorize recent graduates who not responding to their survey as employed. Go figure.
As applicant, you have the right to ask question and expect transparent answer. If they don't or can't answer to your satisfaction, enter at your own risk. After all this is easily the largest investment that many students ever spent on.

Couldn’t agree more. Most of the top programs will make you believe 30-40% of their candidates end up on the buyside. But afaik, this is far from the ground reality. And these are not the lower tier programs. These are some of the top programs. Are they lying to candidates? No. Are they doing statistical wizardry to paint a rosier picture for less thorough applicants? I certainly would say so.

 

[Yuvraj Chauhan]

I agree, window dressing is pretty common across the board.

I would take employment statistics with a pretty sizeable pinch of salt. Employment statistics are always open to a lot of interpretation and all programs use that room in a way it makes their reports look better. Most programs would classify quant researcher at, say, JPMC and a quant researcher at Citadel as ‘quant researcher’ but there’s a world of difference between the two.

I concur, they are a little liberal with generalization. However, I think this generalization doesn't go so far as to blur the line between quant and non-quant jobs, which is why I cited this report. Ofcourse, programs do want a prospective candidate to believe that rates trading at BofA and systematic futures trading at D.E. Shaw are both the same.

A huge chunk of the non-US jobs are within the candidates’ home countries.

I have been talking to a bunch of folks from MIT and Chicago Booth purely out of interest to see how the landscape looks like for non-quant jobs (not just fundamental research, but others as well, could be within advisory or anything else). I do agree on this aspect that there is a high chance of folks ending up in non-quant taking roles outside the US.

Two examples stood out: a graduate who ended up at Perella Weinberg as an IB professional took the job in London, and a graduate who interned at a PE firm called Everstone (sounds awfully similar to Evercore, which is an IB) did his internship in Singapore. While this sample size is small, I do agree, getting a non-quant investment role or advisory role in the US is an uphill battle.

But yeah, circling back, this is something I intend to ask the admissions team in their next info session about how well their candidates have been faring in the non-quant space just to get the full picture of what the program's capabilities is. It's a moot point for programs like Chicago's MSFM or Columbia's MAFN because they're exclusively designed to place graduates in quant/quant-adjacent roles, but I think it's a solid line of thought for "generalist" programs like MIT or Booth.

 

[arohan]

I concur, they are a little liberal with generalization. However, I think this generalization doesn't go so far as to blur the line between quant and non-quant jobs, which is why I cited this report.

I wouldn’t be so confident. The report doesn’t make any ‘quant/non-quant’ classification and any of the seemingly ‘non-quant’ classifications they’ve mentioned could mean anything. As an example, I know an asset manager that hires fundamental research ‘specialists’ who work on more number crunching stuff providing data analytics and visualizations for fundamental research analysts and PMs. I am pretty sure many such roles exist in any and every classification which the report will classify as, say, IBD but won’t actually be Investment Banking. The window dressing is far more egregious than the example you mentioned. (tbh I wouldn’t consider it egregious at all as a trader role in both those setups is largely going to be a support/execution role than a risk taking one. I am assuming here that you are trying to compare a ‘quant trader’ at a bank vs a discretionary QT at a prop shop)

Additionally, there is the added question of visa sponsorship that the report would not highlight at all. Apart from the really big places (eg. BB for IB MBB for consulting) most smaller and boutique firms may hire students on OPT but won’t sponsor H1bs for non-technical roles. This is again a huge issue if you are planning to work in the US beyond the 3 years of OPT. Again reiterating the importance of connecting with alumni with similar background and checking with them. In your case, that would be Indians (I would recommend focussing on Indians specifically rather than the wider internationals as their situation can be very different) who came in with a similar background and went on to pursue front office roles in traditional finance. If you cannot find a large enough subset on LinkedIn or elsewhere, do think twice about your expected outcome.

But yeah, circling back, this is something I intend to ask the admissions team in their next info session about how well their candidates have been faring in the non-quant space just to get the full picture of what the program's capabilities is.

While this is fine for MIT MFin, I’d be cautious with Booth MFin. Its a new program and they haven’t had a single batch placed in the industry yet. What the admissions say can be based on what ‘they expect’ the outcomes of the program to be and be extremely disconnected from the ground reality.

 

[Yuvraj Chauhan]

I wouldn’t be so confident. The report doesn’t make any ‘quant/non-quant’ classification and any of the seemingly ‘non-quant’ classifications they’ve mentioned could mean anything. As an example, I know an asset manager that hires fundamental research ‘specialists’ who work on more number crunching stuff providing data analytics and visualizations for fundamental research analysts and PMs.

That's interesting, didn't know about such cases existing!

Again reiterating the importance of connecting with alumni with similar background and checking with them. In your case, that would be Indians (I would recommend focussing on Indians specifically rather than the wider internationals as their situation can be very different) who came in with a similar background and went on to pursue front office roles in traditional finance. If you cannot find a large enough subset on LinkedIn or elsewhere, do think twice about your expected outcome.

Agreed, makes sense. I'm just trying to see how do graduates from these programs fare in "traditional finance" domains. Talking to current students and recent grads indeed is the best way to temper expectations and infer outcomes.

 

[MikeLawrence]

Couldn’t agree more. Most of the top programs will make you believe 30-40% of their candidates end up on the buyside. But afaik, this is far from the ground reality. And these are not the lower tier programs. These are some of the top programs. Are they lying to candidates? No. Are they doing statistical wizardry to paint a rosier picture for less thorough applicants? I certainly would say so.

The official numbers will be released later, so no details here, but right now a large majority of the Baruch batch is placed and the only person on sell-side turned down a QR offer at a good fund because he just prefers sell-side for whatever reason.

It is likely some more of us will take sell-side offers though, maybe 1-2. Not very many people left on the market.

 

[arohan]

The official numbers will be released later, so no details here, but right now a large majority of the Baruch batch is placed and the only person on sell-side turned down a QR offer at a good fund because he just prefers sell-side for whatever reason.

It is likely some more of us will take sell-side offers though, maybe 1-2. Not very many people left on the market.

That doesn’t seem to align with the most recent employment report that Baruch published (https://mfe.baruch.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2023-Baruch_MFE_Employment_Report.pdf). It says 44% in Investment Banks. Has something changed drastically in the current batch?

Additionally, how many of the buy side roles are desk quant roles and how many are alpha research/investment decision making ones? That’s also an important distinction imo. If Baruch is placing their entire batch on the buyside in decision making roles that is honestly extremely impressive.

 

[MikeLawrence]

That doesn’t seem to align with the most recent employment report that Baruch published (https://mfe.baruch.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2023-Baruch_MFE_Employment_Report.pdf). It says 44% in Investment Banks. Has something changed drastically in the current batch?

Additionally, how many of the buy side roles are desk quant roles and how many are alpha research/investment decision making ones? That’s also an important distinction imo. If Baruch is placing their entire batch on the buyside in decision making roles that is honestly extremely impressive.

First, I don't think that is the most recent report. Second, those reports are a summary of a 5 year lag while our placements generally improve each year. Last year the median first year salary was ~240k, far above the 175k stated in the report, as posted by Dan here.

Information on companies and roles will be released later. I am proud of my classmates for the roles they have secured so far, but I will not give a detailed rundown for posterity.