COMPARE UCB MFE vs CMU MSCF

[Math Andrew]

Are you joking?

no I'm not. Believe it or not.
If you want to practice sport 2 hours per 3 times a week, you can do it.

 

[Kittu]

... you want a job in Cali and not in NYC?

It's really a toss up. You can scream bloody murder all you want, but a couple of years ago a student from Berkeley came forward and did the exact same thing, strongly disputing the employment figures that that university officially publishes. At least you're not saying that the info CMU puts on its website is fabricated.

The toss up goes as follows:

Berkeley, being a state school is cheaper (and also shorter). Also much nicer weather and California-based jobs.

CMU gives you access to NYC. Which will either open unbelievable amounts of doors to you, or be something you squander completely. I interviewed with a hedge fund that only interviewed me and a couple of candidates from MSCF. They were only there because the guy that runs the hedge fund could walk to the MSCF campus and ask them for a resume book. This is what Berkeley just cannot give you, no matter how much they spin the whole "we're on the bank recruitment circuit too!" line. (the part they omit - "along with everyone else")

You can't be farther from the truth when you say "... you want a job in Cali and not in NYC?"

While I would not deny that CMU will give you the next door access, I would refute your claim that Berkeley grads do not get NYC jobs(in Banks/HFs/others) or that Berkeley can't provide you with enough opportunities in NYC.

As much as 52-55% of my class had their internships in NYC(including me). About 25% went to West coast firms(Hedge funds like Blackrock and others). Every year around 50% of the class gets full time offers in NYC. Funnily enough, the same holds true for CMU grads. Roughly 50-55% of them get FT work in NYC as reported on CMU's website( Source:http://www.tepper.cmu.edu/corporati...raduates-compensation-by-geography/index.aspx)

If both schools are placing same percentage of students in NYC, I believe Berkeley does an incredible job of placing students in NYC, given its so called "Location Disadvantage".

I know at least 3 students who turned down offers in NYC to stay back in the Bay Area or were actively recruiting only in the Bay Area for Personal(and very practical) reasons. As for myself, I have ONLY interviewed with NYC based companies,both for my internship and Full Time recruitment.

I have nothing against CMU MSCF program. I believe it is a very very strong program and have often commented on its worth. But, I had to write this post to dispel some of the misconceptions about the Berkeley MFE.

 

[Lyosha]

I would refute your claim that Berkeley grads do not get NYC jobs

Good thing I never made that claim, otherwise a claim I made might have actually been refuted.

given its so called "Location Disadvantage".

See, now THIS is the claim I made. I'm glad we agree on the fact that Berkeley is "locationally disadavantaged".

I never said Berkeley did a poor job of placing students. Or that it is in any way bad, by any stretch of the imagination. What I said is that CMU is a path with less resistance to a specifically NYC job. And it seems we agree on that?

 

[babai]

.... couple of years ago a student from Berkeley came forward and did the exact same thing, strongly disputing the employment figures that that university officially publishes.

Can you/someone please provide the link?

Kittu
How is the placement this year at UCB?

 

[Kittu]

I'm glad we agree on the fact that Berkeley is "locationally disadavantaged".

Umm....Perhaps that was sarcasm from my end?

What I said is that CMU is a path with less resistance to a specifically NYC job. And it seems we agree on that?

The only comparable statistic is the percentage of students going to NYC for FT. If those numbers are similar for two schools(let alone Berk and CMU), how can one be a path with less resistance?
Rather, if we take your hypothesis of less resistance as true, then can we deduce that Berkeley does a better job of placing students in NYC, given its "more resistive path"? Because both schools end up placing same percentage of students?


I do not want to get into a My school vs Your school debate. You would agree its a waste of time and effort.

I have immense respect for MSCF grads and do believe that they are outstanding smart individuals. I just wanted to make sure that anyone seeking information about Berkeley gets the correct information.

Cheers!

 

[Kittu]

Kittu
How is the placement this year at UCB?

Slow..but steady and ticking!

 

[red entor]

Good thing I never made that claim, otherwise a claim I made might have actually been refuted.

See, now THIS is the claim I made. I'm glad we agree on the fact that Berkeley is "locationally disadavantaged".

I never said Berkeley did a poor job of placing students. Or that it is in any way bad, by any stretch of the imagination. What I said is that CMU is a path with less resistance to a specifically NYC job. And it seems we agree on that?

I guess what you're not getting, Lyosha, is when we say your location argument does not hold true for Berkeley, because Berkeley's strong brand name, and strong alumni network, does not make its location disadvantageous the way you "vivaciously" emphasized (lol). Statistics have shown that Berkeley's employment success rates are still superior to those schools you personally favored. I would have given you credit for that very active role in attacking Berkeley if you have data to back your assertions up. But you don't. And, that's the problem.

 

[Lyosha]

If those numbers are similar for two schools(let alone Berk and CMU), how can one be a path with less resistance?

But as previously discussed they're not that similar... there is a clear east coast bias in CMU and a west coast bias in Berkeley (esp. if you take into account that the overwhelming majority of Quant jobs in the USA are in NYC)...

I guess what you're not getting, Lyosha

No, I perfectly get your argument. But I wish whichever schools you all went to emphasized reading comprehension more...

Me: "you're not in NYC, therefore you have access to fewer opportunities in NYC"
You: "But some people still get jobs in NYC! Therefore we clearly must have the same exact access."
Me: *facepalm*

This isn't a "my school vs. your school" argument, CMU is not my school. This is a "reading comprehension" argument...

Have a nice day.

 

[red entor]

But as previously discussed they're not that similar... there is a clear east coast bias in CMU and a west coast bias in Berkeley (esp. if you take into account that the overwhelming majority of Quant jobs in the USA are in NYC)...

From what I've seen, the biased could be attributable to many factors, such as, personal preferences of location, opportunities in the surrounding area - which makes the whole application process much easier for the applicants, and, so on. But for a school as prestigious and respected as Berkeley, location is seemingly a small factor - not as huge as you've vivaciously emphasized in almost all discussions you've participated in, because Berkeley's program would get the respect that NYC schools would normally get, even in NYC or London or Shanghai or Hong Kong or Dubai or Brazil or Mexico or anywhere else. In other words, school location does not supersede prestige, respect and alumni network in choosing a program. Yes there is a slight advantage for NYC schools due to proximity. But large banks/firms/companies in NYC aren't closing their doors to graduates of other well-respected programs. Stanford grads, for example, can land a job in NYC if they'll seek those opportunities. And, so are Chicago, MIT and Princeton grads. It probably would be a little more complicated for them and would require extra work, but they'll get it somehow. Most qualified students are aware about that fact. People go to those places despite not being located in NYC because of the program strength, prestige, networking, respect and opportunities after graduation, which time and again, have proven that they can be as marketable as those graduates of NYC schools are, or even more, as indicated by verifiable, quantifiable data.

Me: "you're not in NYC, therefore you have access to fewer opportunities in NYC"
You: "But some people still get jobs in NYC! Therefore we clearly must have the same exact access."
Me: *facepalm*

This isn't a "my school vs. your school" argument, CMU is not my school. This is a "reading comprehension" argument...

Well, like I said, no one here is denying that proximity provides easier access to many companies' doors located within the area. How much is that of a huge factor over the other factors, which I personally think are just as important in choosing a program, such as, brand name, program strength, alumni network, school environment and so on, is what I am debating about. Did you get that? If school location is your single criterion for choosing a program, then I think you're not thinking very well, and you're going to miss a lot what other schools outside of NYC provides.

Granted location weighs way more than the other factors would, why then are those NYC schools don't have 100% employment data? In other words, if what you're claiming is always true that NYC schools have always had the advantages for NYC employment, those NYC schools would have had a 100% employment acceptance rate at those top NYC companies, correct? But we both know that they don't. In fact, in many instances, those positions that many NYC grads would fight for are given to grads of schools located outside of NYC, such as, Berkeley, Chicago, MIT, Princeton and Stanford, a strong indication that location - though admittedly is an advantage as it would give you easier time in applying - is not that huge enough of a factor to overthrow the other factors. Because in reality, top NYC companies aren't closing their doors to grads of other top schools located outside of NYC. That's one reality that you miserably failed to understand. Most top companies are meritocratic -- they look at the strength of the applicants not where his school is located. And, Berkeley, Chicago, Stanford, MIT and such schools are full of highly qualified students. And, again, sadly, you're trying to ignore that reality.

 

[Lyosha]

*facepalm*

 

[FE_Starter]

I've been admitted to both programs and they both need me to confirm VERY soon. Here are my thoughts:

UCB MFE

Pros: 1. Bigger name; 2. Haas reputation and network; 3. Cheaper (65k vs 77k of CMU); 4. Higher placement salaries than CMU as shown on their websites; 5. Smaller class size (66 vs 92 for CMU); 6. Nice weather;

Cons: 1. Starts and finish in March so a bit off employment cycles; 2. Location disadvantage for finance jobs

CMU MSCF

Pros: 1. Better reputation and connections in east coast financial districts than UCB; 2. NYC location advantages; 3. More courses to learn (16 months vs 12 months of UCB);

Cons: 1. Remote education in NYC "campus"

On Quantnet, CMU has 4.5-star rating while UBC has 3.5 with a few negative posts.

It is a tough choice. Overall I am leaning towards UCB now. Please leave any thoughts. Thanks!

 

[moretodo]

If you want to do S&T, go to CMU. If you want to learn Quant stuff with a lot of programming (which is good btw!), go to CMU.

Otherwise, go to UCB.

 

[Finance Applicant]

CMU is overrated in my opinion... do some research and look at their real stats. Plus do you really want to take half of your classes via stream?

 

[FE_Starter]

If you want to do S&T, go to CMU. If you want to learn Quant stuff with a lot of programming (which is good btw!), go to CMU.

Otherwise, go to UCB.

Thanks. Do most of S&T persons start with trader's assistant?

 

[moretodo]

No, if you end up at a bank, you'll probably start as an Analyst or Associate. At prop trading shops, like SIG, you'll end up as a Trader's assistant first - its not great but not that bad - 70-75k + 25k bonus in the middle of nowhere....will at least save a lot...

With regards to CMU being overrated, I believe so is UCB and might I add significantly more than CMU. A large percentage (>80%) of their placement although in prestigious firms is in Quant Research, Strats, Risk and other support roles etc. and not in core finance roles. Yes, they do place at the Associate level but that is primarily due to the fact that the candidate has prior work experience/PhD. If you lack both of them, you at best will start as a "Senior Analyst" unless you make the cut for MS which is largely profile based. It has very little to do with the program. Core finance roles like Trading, be it quantitative or fundamental, or S&T or investment/asset management roles are very very few, even more few this year compared to the last at least compared over the first 2 months. In this regard, CMU and NYU are significantly better; like there isn't even a comparison between them and UCB - they are not even on the same plane. They may not place 100% of their students and their starting salaries are lower (the average age of the incoming class is also significantly lower so this is expected), but they do place a significantly large % of candidates in roles that have a lot of potential in the sense that they would be significantly more rewarding in the long run compared to these support roles that have the edge immediately after graduation.

As for UCB, apparently, the consensus is that the last batch that just graduated was great and the current batch is not good at all. Also, the internship roles that have come in this year are not nearly as good as compared to the previous year apparently apart from MS taking 10-11 students again.

 

[markhobbus]

UCB students generally have more experience than CMU students which explains why they have higher starting salaries. Don't know you're work history but entry level salaries are pretty standardized for these kind of roles and going to UCB vs CMU will not affect it.

 

[FE_Starter]

No, if you end up at a bank, you'll probably start as an Analyst or Associate. At prop trading shops, like SIG, you'll end up as a Trader's assistant first - its not great but not that bad - 70-75k + 25k bonus in the middle of nowhere....will at least save a lot...

With regards to CMU being overrated, I believe so is UCB and might I add significantly more than CMU. A large percentage (>80%) of their placement although in prestigious firms is in Quant Research, Strats, Risk and other support roles etc. and not in core finance roles. Yes, they do place at the Associate level but that is primarily due to the fact that the candidate has prior work experience/PhD. If you lack both of them, you at best will start as a "Senior Analyst" unless you make the cut for MS which is largely profile based. It has very little to do with the program. Core finance roles like Trading, be it quantitative or fundamental, or S&T or investment/asset management roles are very very few, even more few this year compared to the last at least compared over the first 2 months. In this regard, CMU and NYU are significantly better; like there isn't even a comparison between them and UCB - they are not even on the same plane. They may not place 100% of their students and their starting salaries are lower (the average age of the incoming class is also significantly lower so this is expected), but they do place a significantly large % of candidates in roles that have a lot of potential in the sense that they would be significantly more rewarding in the long run compared to these support roles that have the edge immediately after graduation.

As for UCB, apparently, the consensus is that the last batch that just graduated was great and the current batch is not good at all. Also, the internship roles that have come in this year are not nearly as good as compared to the previous year apparently apart from MS taking 10-11 students again.

How did you find info about the current batch? They haven't started internship yet.

 

[vtomar]

Hello FE_Starter! Good question that u asked him (moretodo). Moretodo is one of those who had applied to UCB MFE but got waitlisted. To bump himself up in the list, he started targeting students who were confused about whether they should join the MFE program or not. He started interacting with students on this forum as if he was giving first hand/insider info regarding the program hoping that they would get turned off by the information he was providing thus improving his chances of getting in. For more info about how he has gone about spewing venom across the forum, here is a minor example: https://www.quantnet.com/threads/ucb-mfe-admit-conditions.16263/ . I am an alum of UCB MFE program and I could not be any happier or in any better position than I currently am, thanks to the program. please PM me if u need more info or if you want me to put you in touch with either the alums or current students of the UCB MFE program.

 

[moretodo]

This is a bit weird but this account is being used by 2 people...The views mentioned are mine and not the other's that vtomar is referring to...whose views I did not agree with as well that are mentioned in the link vtomar provides before entering the program...

I am a current UCB MFE student. PM me and I can speak with you over the phone. I can provide a screenshot of my UCB MFE transcript as proof...no name though..

As for vtomar, please note that his profile was really really good. All his batchmates I know say hes really smart. I've briefly spoken with him as well. He seems to be a focused and a nice guy and quite passionate and opinionated.

He quite frankly would have ended up where he ended up even without this program given his prior work experience in my personal opinion.

This is getting to be too controversial and unlike my friend who likes hot-headed debates, I dont. I can provide you with my perspective of UCB vs CMU given the kind of opportunities my close friend is interviewing for at CMU MSCF and vtomar can provide his. I am not going to attempt to debunk what he states.

PS : I was admitted to both CMU and UCB. I chose UCB but it seems to be currently a mistake. Do not get me wrong. I'll always be supportive of the program and its graduates in the future but that does not change the fact that CMU is better at least in my opinion in hindsight.

 

[FE_Starter]

Hello FE_Starter! Good question that u asked him (moretodo). Moretodo is one of those who had applied to UCB MFE but got waitlisted. To bump himself up in the list, he started targeting students who were confused about whether they should join the MFE program or not. He started interacting with students on this forum as if he was giving first hand/insider info regarding the program hoping that they would get turned off by the information he was providing thus improving his chances of getting in. For more info about how he has gone about spewing venom across the forum, here is a minor example: https://www.quantnet.com/threads/ucb-mfe-admit-conditions.16263/ . I am an alum of UCB MFE program and I could not be any happier or in any better position than I currently am, thanks to the program. please PM me if u need more info or if you want me to put you in touch with either the alums or current students of the UCB MFE program.

Good point lol