Columbia Professional Degree vs CMU MSCF

[esahione]

Hi all,

I was wondering what you believe would be better for a career in quantitative finance.

My first option is to go to Columbia and get a Professional Degree (Ph.D courses but no research, would take only two years) in Operations Research with an emphasis in Financial Engineering

I would be taking approximately 24 graduate courses overall. Courses would include both FE and OR courses, and some courses in the Computer Science and Statistics departments.

The second option is CMU's MSCF, which most of you already know.

Since it would only take me an extra 6 months after graduation from CMU to complete the professional degree, I am very torn between the two options. I believe that taking the PD path would give me a better foundation and better knowledge base overall.

However, CMU's MSCF has great recognition in the quantitative finance field. Moreover, it has great placement statistics while I have no idea how the P.D. would perform.

Do you think I would greatly diminish my earnings potential and career possibilities by taking the P.D. route? Do you think I would be able to get similar jobs if I went after the P.D.? Do you think that Columbia's brand name would be better in the long run? Anything else I should consider?

 

[rajanS]

brand name gets you through the door, initially. After couple of years, brand name is immaterial. only your experience will be judged there after. you listed your options, but you didn't say whether you got accepted or not into either of these programs.

 

[esahione]

I only asked because I was accepted into both.

I agree that in the long run experience is what matters. But having breadth of knowledge also matters in the long run, since it allows one to develop solutions that take ideas from several different disciplines, instead only one.