UCLA MFE Vs USC MFE Vs INSEAD MBA

Joined
4/10/16
Messages
8
Points
11
I have an admit from all following schools.

I'm 33 yrs old and have a Masters in Finance from Sussex University which practically was useless. I wanted to get to the quant side and pretty much picked up a bit reading from Shreve, Neftci & others. I'm on the rough side of age and will be 34 when I graduate so have to make the right decision.
 
Judging by the information provided on the respective university's site , and going by the general reputation of the University's various programs , and also given your preference for Finance , you'd be better off opting for the UCLA program.

Keep the USC program out of your choices , as it's an average program in an average school and doesn't hold a candle to the other 2 .

**************************************************************************************

Why not Insead MBA ?

-> Insead MBA is a brand that works well in Europe , and in some parts of Asia . It isn't as well known as UCLA or USC herein .

-> Insead MBA recruitment is dominated by consulting firms (43 % vs 15% for "Financial Services" firms)

**************************************************************************************

Why not USC ?

-> Offered by Viterbi School of Engineering , which is NOT KNOWN AT ALL for fintech education .
-> Much lower career prospects when compared to the other 2 candidate universities due to the above and also the fact that USC Viterbi is an average 3rd tier engineering school .

**************************************************************************************

Why UCLA ?

-> Program ranked #12 here on Quantnet vs 28 for USC :P
-> You'll be studying FinTech from the best possible faculty out of these 3 options .
-> Academically rigorous environment . Stellar student:faculty ration of 3:1
-> Base salary on graduation is in the same bracket as an average B-School [ quoted as 100k ] .
-> MFE is offered by their B-School , which has a good reputation in USA , and is also somewhat well known abroad . Hence a higher visibility out of the 2 USA schools + better career prospects .
-> Bay Area has massive number of firms dealing with all kind of sub-domains of Finance . Your networking options would be way higher here . All the major finance firms operating in USA would be open to you with a strong degree like a UCLA MFE .
**************************************************************************************

There is also another aspect of the Insead MBA that you should remember : Currently that program sees ~1003 graduates every year . 15% work for Financial Services firms . That means 150 odd people going to F.S firms .

Since both campuses are located in Singapore and Paris , neither of which is known for a great FinTech sector like what you'd see in California or New York , you'd have to network quite a lot to make a transition to your preferred firms .

Therefore you should opt for : UCLA , INSEAD .
Forget about USC .

References :
1) Official source for INSEAD 2014-15 Salary report : https://www.insead.edu/sites/default/files/assets/dept/recruit/docs/mba_employment_statistics.pdf

2) UCLA MFE Homepage :
Master of Financial Engineering | UCLA Anderson School of Management
 
Based solely on the employment data of those three given schools, INSEAD sets it apart from UCLA, more so, USC. INSEAD is quite respected in the US, too (viewed as prestigious as Chicago Booth, Northwestern Kellogg, MIT Sloan, Wharton or Berkeley Haas by the top employers), and the school has an alumni network in NY, San Francisco, LA, Washington DC and Chicago, to name a few. But take note that the INSEAD program isn't a finance program, but an MBA, which obviously isn't as "quant" as the MFE program. So, if your main reason for going back to school is to equip yourself with some highly mathematical financial tools, maybe UCLA would be the best choice for you.
 
Back
Top Bottom