Where would you rank Baruch MFE with top programs ?

[Yuriy]

Very interesting, indeed I'm sure all of us have a story to tell

 

[kean]

I think it is not about to rank a program. It is about which program that offers the most marketable skills for employment purposes. If we review the current top 10 programs from the Global Derivatives ranking, the design of each program contents is difference. Some can be very mathy, some are not.

I was told to equip with very strong maths background from one of the program, but I just feel ( I think only) that undergraduate second year maths level is just good enough. After all, we are dealing with finance and some uncertainty situation. You may disagree but I do hope some of you can comment on the above.

Ranking is one thing. If Baruch can produce very marketable employment skills...why not Baruch? However, if the Top 5 programs can produce similar marketable skills vs Baruch...then I reserve my comments. You can think about it. However, I believe Prof. Stefan has done a remarkable great job to help his students.

Cheers,
Kean

 

[Dmytro]

If we review the current top 10 programs from the Global Derivatives ranking...

the problem with that ranking is that it's from 2003/early 2004, and, as you can see, a lot has changed since then.

even folks at GD conceded that the ranking does not present a true picture at this point. it's a good illustration, and overall could be helpful (e.g. NYC's FE programs are strong), but they don't advise to use it literary in 2007.

 

[Sam Harris]

Very nice story, Sam. Thanks for sharing with us.

I have serious flashback of Tom Cruise in Top Gun reading your stories about the Annapolis

Yes, but don't forget that Maverick did not go to Annapolis and it was a big chip on his shoulder. Memorizing Top Gun line for line is part of the admissions requirements. :D

Oh, totally off topic, the best movie for seeing what the Navy is REALLY like... "Down Periscope." I was on a submarine, the USS Alabama for 7 weeks, and so far that is the only movie I've seen that captures the culture accurately.

Life in the Air Force? Watch "Pentagon Wars." Hilarious until you realize it's true. :wall

 

[kean]

Ranking

I don't think I make my statement clear.

We know the core skills are stochastic calculus and probability. Of course, there are other skills like C++ programming .....etc.

I went to each different programs to review their course contents. Some have fancy name but I am not sure about the quality of the contents. As a student, I am also a consumer. I do not choose to buy any product with cosmetic look only. I prefer to use the functions as per my needs.

Hence, which program actually has a suitable FE skills to be marketable (I mean course contents) since so many programs spring out lately. This is just a general discussion. Please do not get so defensive about Baruch program because we are in the Baruch forum.

Thanks.

the problem with that ranking is that it's from 2003/early 2004, and, as you can see, a lot has changed since then.

even folks at GD conceded that the ranking does not present a true picture at this point. it's a good illustration, and overall could be helpful (e.g. NYC's FE programs are strong), but they don't advise to use it literary in 2007.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Oh, totally off topic, the best movie for seeing what the Navy is REALLY like... "Down Periscope." I was on a submarine, the USS Alabama for 7 weeks, and so far that is the only movie I've seen that captures the culture accurately.

Life in the Air Force? Watch "Pentagon Wars." Hilarious until you realize it's true. :wall

I haven't heard of those movies but will look for it. I've been watching a lot of new movies again in Blu-ray. Watched "A few Good Men" a couple days ago. Absolutely stunning in Blu-ray. What a classic movie !

Now, what are we discussing here ? Oh, ranking !
You wanna to know the truth ? You can't handle the truth. :D

 

[Yuriy]

I haven't heard of those movies but will look for it. I've been watching a lot of new movies again in Blu-ray. Watched "A few Good Men" a couple days ago. Absolutely stunning in Blu-ray. What a classic movie !

Now, what are we discussing here ? Oh, ranking !
You wanna to know the truth ? You can't handle the truth. :D

Andy, am I getting a feeling that you are turning away from Quantnet and to Blue-ray movies? :D

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Andy, am I getting a feeling that you are turning away from Quantnet and to Blue-ray movies? :D

I need to watch my growing library of Blu-ray. It's almost 4TB right now.

Back to the ranking, do you think we can get people at USNews magazine to do the Financial Engineering category as well ?

The one from GD is way too outdated and I don't think the guys there have enough resource to do another one. They've been talking about it the last 2 years.

 

[Yuriy]

I need to watch my growing library of Blu-ray. It's almost 4TB right now.

Back to the ranking, do you think we can get people at USNews magazine to do the Financial Engineering category as well ?

The one from GD is way too outdated and I don't think the guys there have enough resource to do another one. They've been talking about it the last 2 years.

4TB?? ?????? ????
Work + School + Blue-Ray + Quantnet = No Sleep?


About USNews. I don't know. I have a feeling that if they wanted to do it, they would be working on it right now. We can probably ask them if they plan on having FE category.

 

[Tigga]

This is an old thread but in light of what happened to the placement of Columbia MSFE students, I think we should downgrade it to Non-performing stock.
We need to also upgrade the Baruch MFE stock to Outstanding

Even through most may have different opinion but if you judge a program on how well its graduates got placed specially in tumbling job market, I think we need to reconsider the Old World order of Ivy programs. It is just silly to tout the Ivy brand when they can't do a damn job helping their students.

 

[bigbadwolf]

This is an old thread but in light of what happened to the placement of Columbia MSFE students, I think we should downgrade it to Non-performing stock.

I've heard their program isn't that great either. Whenever a school lends its "brand name" to a new program, it has to be careful to see that the program won't end up tarnishing the reputation of the institution itself. MFE program directors have to ensure the program hits the ground running, and not bull**** themselves into thinking they can play it by ear, develop the course materials as they go along, and look for industry contacts at the last moment; nor should they think they can bull**** the market (prospective students). Maybe for a year or two they can but then the abysmal reputation of the program will get around among both prospective students and employers.

 

[Dmytro]

basta!

not to be a party spoiler or anything, but i'm getting a bit tired of bashing other programs on this and other related forums.

i find it of great value though when Andy, Dominic Todd et al provide objective information about other programs' elements, specifics.
but when people are simply saying that one program is better that another one, it doesn't sound very, uh, fin.engineering-like, don't you think?

at the end of the day, just make sure you know your stuff well. yes, the school name could be helpful in getting an interview (and maybe a bit higher starting salary), but after that you're on your own.

i don't see how all of these ranking talks are relevant to current students - if i'm already enrolled, i'm ver unlikely to try to switch to another program (i know, exceptions exist, but still). i'll also do my best to blow my own horn and find a bunch of supporting stats for that.

it's like arguing which type of bear is best. there's just too many subtle and not so subtle factors, and it makes it difficult to develop a clear-cut ranking.

everybody is biased. i'm biased, i love baruch.
prospective students beware.

 

[alain]

not to be a party spoiler or anything, but i'm getting a bit tired of bashing other programs on this and other related forums.

i find it of great value though when Andy, Dominic Todd et al provide objective information about other programs' elements, specifics.
but when people are simply saying that one program is better that another one, it doesn't sound very, uh, fin.engineering-like, don't you think?

at the end of the day, just make sure you know your stuff well. yes, the school name could be helpful in getting an interview (and maybe a bit higher starting salary), but after that you're on your own.

i don't see how all of these ranking talks are relevant to current students - if i'm already enrolled, i'm ver unlikely to try to switch to another program (i know, exceptions exist, but still). i'll also do my best to blow my own horn and find a bunch of supporting stats for that.

it's like arguing which type of bear is best. there's just too many subtle and not so subtle factors, and it makes it difficult to develop a clear-cut ranking.

everybody is biased. i'm biased, i love baruch.
prospective students beware.

Amen!!!

 

[Andy Nguyen]

not to be a party spoiler or anything, but i'm getting a bit tired of bashing other programs on this and other related forums.

I have got just the perfect smiley for you to use:deadhorse:
You are right, current students and alumni give a dang about what others rank their program. Once you put a foot in the door, names, ranking have as much values as the MBS that banks try to write down.
Once you are in a program, you stick with it. If it's not good enough, you push, shove, kick, scream, fight till it gets better. There is a lot of pride that goes with it when you get things operate properly.
I know all Baruch students and alumni are very proud of their program.
And students and alumni at other programs are proud of theirs too.

Ranking has much interest to the prospective students and little of interest to most others. Students who faced with tons of choices rely on ranking to give them a way to pick and choose. It's really hard, and sometimes impossible to get an idea of what the real value of each program is. People who read the USNews college ranking religiously are parents and high school students and maybe college administrators.

I also notice that there is now less and less discussion about MFE ranking compared to 2,3 years ago. I think people got smarter and didn't get easily fooled by the so-called "Ivy brand", "ranking" anymore. People learn to look for the real values of the program. If anything, the market condition this year just makes it easier to see where the real values are.

Just like the massive write-downs happening now, there is a current reevaluating process going on right now among prospective students. It will take a while for the banks to count their bad stuff and it will take a while for good and bad names to emerge.

 

[bigbadwolf]

I know all Baruch students and alumni are very proud of their program.
And students and alumni at other programs are proud of theirs too.

Baruch faculty have good reason to be proud of what they've achieved: an affordable and high-quality program. Baruch students and alumni have good reason to be satisfied with what they are receiving/have received. The same doesn't necessarily hold for other programs, some of which are such a disgrace that students are either thoroughly ashamed of them or walk away in disgust. It's not always possible to change things.

Ranking has much interest to the prospective students and little of interest to most others. Students who faced with tons of choices rely on ranking to give them a way to pick and choose. It's really hard, and sometimes impossible to get an idea of what the real value of each program is. People who read the USNews college ranking religiously are parents and high school students and maybe college administrators.

Not necessarily ranking, which is too crude a metric by itself, but some place where prospective students can read critical and dispassionate appraisals. If there already is a place in cyberspace or elsewhere where this is being done, then a thread like this can be closed down. If not, the thread should continue -- not for current students, who have scant option but to continue, regardless of how worthless their program might be, but for prospective students. Threads like this perform a valuable economic function: they force the market to be efficient. If Fordham and Columbia have weak or worthless programs, then threads like this will force them to change or drive them out of business.

I also notice that there is now less and less discussion about MFE ranking compared to 2,3 years ago. I think people got smarter and didn't get easily fooled by the so-called "Ivy brand", "ranking" anymore. People learn to look for the real values of the program.

I agree. And if people need to find out about the values (or lack thereof) of particular programs, why not on Quantnet?

 

[DominiConnor]

dstefan enters an interesting area about large vs good programs.
As a HH I do have to say that the two terms are not entirely opposites. A non trivial factor in getting a job is whether people have heard of it. Bigger program implies greater familiarity.

That's one reason our internal list of MFE programs is quite non intuitive, since for us the "value" of a MFE is basically a reflection of how hard it is to sell people who've done it.

I have also to say that I reject Cost/Value as a valid ratio fr choosing MFE programs, and to be honest am slightly worried that anyone studying finance might really belive it to be useful.

Let us acknowledge that pretty much everyone doing a MFE has a utility that is mostly driven by money, and whose risk aversion is quite low. I suspect the discount factor for future earnings is higher than the general population, but also contains some step functions.

So what is a reasonable, functional form, based upon observable variables ?

It seems to me that a quant should be able to apply their skills to themselves as well as a credit tranche.
Note that I say observable values.
Without knowing the earnings of people going into a course, what meaning can we extract from their later pay ?

If I were running a MFE programme, I'd set this as a homework.

 

[bobbychopra]

I guess the question about "ranking" is broad without measuring the set of observables, which would form your criteria.

There are pros and cons to every criteria that I think we have been discussing in these posts. I will try to explain.

- Placement rate.
Schools might have a placement rate of 100% However, what I want to know is what percentage of students actually got the job that they were "seeking." When times are hard, good students might accept a jobs working with a Sell-side unit. But what if the students really wanted to be quantitative analysts in an energy trading firm. Placement rate might be good for one who is unaware of options, but what about those who have an idea of what they want to do after graduating.
One might be able to get a breakdown of what companies and what divisions employed. But remember, "Past Performance is no ways indicative of the Future."

- Name-Brand Professionals affiliated with the program.
What did you say? You have some famous finance professionals affiliated with your school's program. Great! **Chances** are that he/she might not be interested in teaching. He/she wants to focus on research and thinks of class as an unnecessary distraction. For all you know, they teach only in the evenings, have non-existent office hours and are otherwise unapproachable for questions or feedback. Also, they might be successful in their career, but they might be a crappy instructor.

- Name-brand Schools.
How much is tuition? What? Really? The rate of change of yearly tuition is higher than the current rate of inflation. Oh wait a sec, what has the school really done with the program compared to last year? Probably similar curriculum, similar homework and similar quality of students, but they are using the newer edition of the textbook this year. Crap! I can't re-use the book I bought used or borrowed from a senior. Also, if your admission process only accepts students with relevant work experience and a handful of newbies, then your sample rate of starting salaries and bonuses are skewed. I would imagine a school like this should be smart in zeroing in on what might be signal or noise.


There are probably more factors, but I think I have bashed enough. In the end, I think you should talk to the students and the alumni. They can tell you what the program is "really" like and whether it is worth the money. Everything else should be taken with a grain of salt.

I can understand the concern of going to a well ranked university. I wouldn't want to pay my good money to a school, just to realize that I flushed it down the toilet. The advantage of a good university is the ability to get a job easier than students from other universities when times are rough.

You could whine and complain and blame every aspect about the program. In the end, you don't need a name-brand school or a well-ranked program. You need the focus, determination and dedication to use the program to the fullest.

My criteria for a good program:
- You should build the necessary foundation and the right toolkit for understanding and evaluating instruments,
- You should be able to read a research paper, critique it, understand the assumptions and deficiencies that are not mentioned, and
- You should be able to translate an abstract idea or even that research paper into a working model.

 

[bigbadwolf]

I have also to say that I reject Cost/Value as a valid ratio fr choosing MFE programs, and to be honest am slightly worried that anyone studying finance might really believe it to be useful.

There was a time when CS graduates could literally walk into jobs, sometimes having multiple offers even before they graduated. That's changed over the last several years: the 2004 Bureau of Labor Statistics show an official unemployment rate of close to 8% for computer programmers (higher than the general unemployment rate). And it's continuing to get worse not only with regard to number of jobs but with regard to pay and benefits. There was a time when an MBA from any decent program could walk into a job. That's changed over the last several years as there's a surfeit of MBAs being injected into the job market and as firms continue to streamline and/or move white-collar jobs offshore. There's no good reason why financial engineering will be immune. Already fixed-income analytical work has been outsourced to India and this trend is inexorable. Even without this, finance is in a state of rapid change and some of the quant work of the last few years is likely to vanish (as people become more wary of complex engineered products that either blow up in their faces or have unintended side-effects). If Columbia can only place 15 out of a class of 67, what does this suggest? And so people have to realise there are some question marks clustered around "benefit." On top of this, it can be argued that there's no longer any shortage of quants available. There are more MFE programs graduating more people than ever before. I'm not trying to put anyone off but these are questions and issues which have to be addressed.

With regard to cost, do a little "thought experiment": suppose that instead of $100,000+, it cost $250,000+. Would this give people pause and make them think through the benefits and uncertainties more critically? Of course it would. So why should people not do the same exercise with the lower figure?

It's important that people not behave like lemmings and unthinkingly gravitate towards financial engineering programs because life thereafter will be a bed of roses. That's unlikely. The field is of relatively recent provenance and is undergoing rapid change.

Having uttered these reservations, I have to add that forking out the time and money for an MFE qualification from Hass or CMU is still most probably a good investment and it's silly to look at the price tag as it fades into insignificance compared to the expectation (benefits x probability of getting them).

Let us acknowledge that pretty much everyone doing a MFE has a utility that is mostly driven by money, and whose risk aversion is quite low. I suspect the discount factor for future earnings is higher than the general population, but also contains some step functions.

That would be prudent.

It seems to me that a quant should be able to apply their skills to themselves as well as a credit tranche.

Hehe. Not too sure about that analogy. The calculations of default probabilities were none too accurate. Calculating expectations in the real world is fraught with hazard but since there have been a spate of books covering exactly these problems in the last year or so, I shall remain silent.

 

[Yuriy]

While Baruch is the best in terms of "what you get" vs. "what you pay" , some people pay attention to other indicators.

Since "Name-Brand" was mentioned above, I would add that some people simply want a degree from Columbia, NYU or CMU, and high cost won't stop them even if their chances of finding a job are the same as after graduating from Baruch.

 

[Francis]

My guess is that as more info about our program is known, the 2007 stats, student profiles are made public, people's perception about Baruch has changed.

No kidding, when I first went to Baruch's website and started to browse I began to think it's not too bad. Then I saw the admissions stats which discouraged me, then I saw the student profiles of admits and my heart dropped.