COMPARE UCB MFE vs MIT MFin

[Jaewoo Jung]

UCB Financial Engineering vs MIT Master in Finance. Which one do you think is better?

Even though I'm more attracted to the name of MIT, MIT is more expensive and I've been told that I cannot have summer internship in MIT.

So just want to ask good people here...

I know this would sound like a stupid question for some people, but it would be really appreciated if you leave any opinion about this.

 

[ZurriT]

I guess your decision could relies on where you want to work and what job do you want? MIT is more expensive and you can't get a summer internship - The placement if i remember correctly are more or less the same (UCB's is better - referring to 2012 figures), with UCB's program more highly recognized I guess. However, UCB's MFE is focused on a particular area whereas the MFin is broader. So in all, if you have a quant focus (which I'm guessing since you applied to UCB) UCB would probably be your best bet; It's cheaper, the program has a better reputation and placement (not by that much). Hope that helps!

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong! :P

 

[Terrytd]

just to add to above, UCB is a MFE vs MIT MFin, so it really depends what you type of job/career you want. UCB being more quant oriented than MIT, which is boarder. but that's not to say you cant be a quant after MIT and vice versa.

 

[Jaewoo Jung]

Thank you so much. It is really helpful!

 

[Hirtzzz]

Hi all,

Just a quick hypothetical. Suppose one got into both programmes with the goal of being a structured products trader or getting on a PM track (rates or fx), Which programme would be a better fit?

Obviously the MFE is more quantitative then the MFin but I'm not sure that's totally required if you're trading.

thanks!

 

[moretodo]

MIT MFin

 

[Hirtzzz]

MIT MFin

Hey, moretodo

Thanks for the reply. Do you think you could elaborate a little on this?

 

[moretodo]

MIT MFin places well in roles that target MBAs or Undergraduates majoring in Business relative to UCB MFE in my opinion. MIT MFin is sort of an accelerated finance focused graduate level program with classes similar to those of the Sloan MBA. Also, their placements are closer to MBA type placements.

If you wanna be a quant portfolio manager or do quant research or strats or risk management, go to UCB or for that matter preferably CMU or Baruch.

 

[Hapway]

I have been admitted to MIT (12 month) and Berkeley.

So far I haven't made a decision.

In terms of experience -- I am fresh out of undergrad without full-time experience (I have a BB internship experience in non-quant S&T/Research). Undergrad majors were in Business and Engineering (think Mechanical, Material, Chemical) from a state-school like Berkeley/UCLA.

I'm being imprecise here due to privacy issues.

The problem is that I lack undergrad coursework in math and CS. This would make it hard to follow Berkeley's curriculum especially since many incoming students have higher degrees and undergrad coursework in math/CS.

Besides the standard Calculus - Linear Algebra - Diff Eq series, programming courses in Python and C++, Econometrics, and an intermediate Statistics (calculus based) course is what I finished. My undergrad curriculum in engineering was not particularly quantitative, heavy with design and project based courses.

That said, I want to work in a quantitative role, perhaps in quant trading/research etc. But I am fully aware that with a weak quantitative background, I may be placed in risk management positions which I do not prefer. I am open for regular S&T type positions which are awesome in my view.

My heart speaks for Berkeley. Though I am weak in quant studies, I truly believe that only through intense hard work and overcoming challenges that you can advance. I see myself struggling at Berkeley with coursework that is beyond my undergrad-preparation. Yes I can survive and follow the curriculum, but I see a risk of myself becoming "mediocre" relative to my colleagues.

On the other hand, MIT would be a more reasonable choice since most incoming students are young, and the brand will help more for S&T and non-quant positions. Since my undergrad is from Berkeley, going to MIT will have greater impact in terms of experience, network, and brand.

Overall, I see myself fairly competent for a sellside BB role with MIT on my resume, but I am not sure how Berkeley will change my game (since quant abilities are from yourself, not the brand).

But still, I think there is more to learn at Berkeley (MIT's 12-month curriculum overlaps with CFA and FRM which I passed several levels) and I believe that "financial engineers" will become even more valuable as newer data technology integrates with finance (ML, AI etc) so I recognize a pressing need in quantitative studies.

I would deeply appreciate anyone's advice. Apologies for the wordiness.

 

[Hapway]

Also forgot to mention -- in case I go to MIT, I secured an internship (trading) at a BB bank in Asia that ends before July.

 

[Qysnp]

There's no free options in any cases. If you truly "want to work in a quantitative role, perhaps in quant trading/research" and believe that you have "a weak quantitative background", then you should go to Berkeley and fight for a quant job...You never get it if you don't try...

 

[Hapway]

There's no free options in any cases. If you truly "want to work in a quantitative role, perhaps in quant trading/research" and believe that you have "a weak quantitative background", then you should go to Berkeley and fight for a quant job...You never get it if you don't try...

Thank you so much.

To me Berkeley will be a big challenge with great potential return.

Otherwise I can go to MIT and pursue self study in CS/Math through electives and online courses (3rd party).

Wish I could be wiser.

 

[volmacro]

I think Berkeley is a better program and would provide more career support services. The only benefit that I see for you to go to MIT is just adding the name to your resume since you already have Berkeley for undergrad, and the MIT name recognition is slightly better. The MIT curriculum does seem like it overlaps a lot with the CFA and FRM programs, so you may not get as much challenge out of it. Between the 2, I would pick Berkeley. After you land your first job (and it sounds like you have success with landing internships), the difference between the MIT and Berkeley name would matter far less than what you do on the job and your skills. Your skillset will likely be stronger going through Berkeley's MFE program than MIT's program.

 

[Hapway]

I think Berkeley is a better program and would provide more career support services. The only benefit that I see for you to go to MIT is just adding the name to your resume since you already have Berkeley for undergrad, and the MIT name recognition is slightly better. The MIT curriculum does seem like it overlaps a lot with the CFA and FRM programs, so you may not get as much challenge out of it. Between the 2, I would pick Berkeley. After you land your first job (and it sounds like you have success with landing internships), the difference between the MIT and Berkeley name would matter far less than what you do on the job and your skills. Your skillset will likely be stronger going through Berkeley's MFE program than MIT's program.

My concern came from the possibility of being marginalized by experienced colleagues and recruiters favoring the experienced.

But I can admit that it is useless pessimism -- in the end I'm sure I can advance.

 

[Hapway]

My concern came from the possibility of being marginalized by experienced colleagues and recruiters favoring the experienced.

But I can admit that it is useless pessimism -- in the end I'm sure I can advance.

I think Berkeley is a better program and would provide more career support services. The only benefit that I see for you to go to MIT is just adding the name to your resume since you already have Berkeley for undergrad, and the MIT name recognition is slightly better. The MIT curriculum does seem like it overlaps a lot with the CFA and FRM programs, so you may not get as much challenge out of it. Between the 2, I would pick Berkeley. After you land your first job (and it sounds like you have success with landing internships), the difference between the MIT and Berkeley name would matter far less than what you do on the job and your skills. Your skillset will likely be stronger going through Berkeley's MFE program than MIT's program.

I think Berkeley is a better program and would provide more career support services. The only benefit that I see for you to go to MIT is just adding the name to your resume since you already have Berkeley for undergrad, and the MIT name recognition is slightly better. The MIT curriculum does seem like it overlaps a lot with the CFA and FRM programs, so you may not get as much challenge out of it. Between the 2, I would pick Berkeley. After you land your first job (and it sounds like you have success with landing internships), the difference between the MIT and Berkeley name would matter far less than what you do on the job and your skills. Your skillset will likely be stronger going through Berkeley's MFE program than MIT's program.

Thanks for the view. I was forgetting that I have nothing to lose. I will take the bigger challenge and make a bigger leap. Will be going to Berkeley -- certainly not just from your advice but from what I confirmed over the past few weeks. Thanks.

P.S : typo for "undergrad from Berkeley" => "undergrad from state school like Berkeley".

 

[befuddled]

Hi all,

I am fortunate to have received offers from both the UCB mfe and MIT mfin programs. However, I have some trouble deciding between the two and would appreciate any insights.

I am looking to work as a quant researcher at a hedge fund, and looking at past statistics it seems that the UCB program caters more to these QR roles and has a higher mean salary (maybe pushed up by a higher % of California-based grads?). However, while MIT has many grads going into non-quant roles, on the surface it seems that those going to QR roles get placed in similar caliber places to UCB. MIT provides a detailed breakdown of employers, but I couldn't find anything as detailed for UCB.

I appreciate neither program is a surefire way to get QR roles in top-tier hedge funds, but I would like to know which program would provide the best odds of landing a QR job at a top hedge fund.

(aside: I have a 30k scholarship for MIT, so both cost roughly the same overall and not a deciding factor for me)

Thank you very much!

 

[ajjjw]

Can't make a wrong decision here imo. If you are sure you want QR I'd go to Berkeley, if you wanted to maintain a bit of optionality re: what area of finance you'd like to go into then maybe lean MIT.

Also this is less of a factor since you can always apply anywhere after you graduate, but just by the numbers these programs are going to be placing a large number of people in firms that are geographically close to them - so worth it to consider if you want to be in the bay or in Boston

congrats!

 

[befuddled]

Can't make a wrong decision here imo. If you are sure you want QR I'd go to Berkeley, if you wanted to maintain a bit of optionality re: what area of finance you'd like to go into then maybe lean MIT.

Also this is less of a factor since you can always apply anywhere after you graduate, but just by the numbers these programs are going to be placing a large number of people in firms that are geographically close to them - so worth it to consider if you want to be in the bay or in Boston

congrats!

Thanks for the reply! Yep I’m fairly certain I want to go down the QR route so Berkeley is the way I’m leaning right now. I’m not too sure where I’d want to be working geographically rn so I can’t really use that to inform my decision.

Thanks again

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Congrats. You're in a good position to choose between those programs. Take your time to research before selecting one. Despite the sample data of job profiles you found, they are more different than similar. You will decide where you end up, and the program will need to provide sufficient resources to get you there.
UCB MFE is currently without an executive director. I don't know how much this will affect the program, but the former director, Linda, was known to be involved with her student's placements.
If you feel generous, do post your timelines on the Tracker. It helps our members a lot.

 

[befuddled]

Congrats. You're in a good position to choose between those programs. Take your time to research before selecting one. Despite the sample data of job profiles you found, they are more different than similar. You will decide where you end up, and the program will need to provide sufficient resources to get you there.
UCB MFE is currently without an executive director. I don't know how much this will affect the program, but the former director, Linda, was known to be involved with her student's placements.
If you feel generous, do post your timelines on the Tracker. It helps our members a lot.

Ah I see - thank you! Will add to the tracker.