COMPARE Columbia University MFE vs Carnegie Mellon University MSCF

Rank
Program
Total Score
Peer Score
% Employed at Graduation
% Employed at 3 months
% Employed in the US
Compensation
Cohort Size
Acceptance Rate
Avg Undergrad GPA
Tuition
Rank
3
Carnegie Mellon University New York, NY 10005 | Pittsburgh, PA 15213
4.70 star(s) 53 reviews
3
Carnegie Mellon University
93 4.2 89 99 97 165.2K 101 16.8 100.6K
Rank
6
Columbia University New York, NY 10027
3.18 star(s) 11 reviews
6
Columbia University
85 3.6 37 100 56 152.1K 123 10.52 93.02K
Try a different way to make the decision. That is:

Ignoring the advantages, instead, try to compare the disadvantages of these two programs that which one you cannot stand more?

For CMU MSCF, you have to take video lectures, and cannot enjoy the real campus life. In this point of view, you may dislike CMU more.

On the other hand, I don't think there are much difference between the two. They are both top programs. The only factor, that decides whether you would succeed or not, is just yourself.
I just looked at the placement statistics on schools' websites, and I found only 89% of MSCF students found full-time jobs but 100% of MSFE students had full-time offers. Does this mean MSFE has a better placement than MSCF? Thanks.
 
I just looked at the placement statistics on schools' websites, and I found only 89% of MSCF students found full-time jobs but 100% of MSFE students had full-time offers. Does this mean MSFE has a better placement than MSCF? Thanks.

Yes, if the stats are true and credible, Columbia MFE looks has better placement results.

But you shouldn't ignore a fact that more than 70% candidates of CMU MSCF program don't have full-time experience, while Columbia MFE admitted much more experienced people. So just staring at the placement rates may be biased. You should focus more on which program fits you better. The reason why those 10% people who didn't get full-time offer mainly comes from themselves.
 
Last edited:
Hi all,

This is my first post here, feeling excited!

I'm graduating from UC Berkeley with Stats and Business double major. I have taken 3 computer science classes so I can program but not as skillful as CS Majors. I have internship experience in BlackRock, another one in China, both in quantitative investment field.

I want to do quantitative asset management in the future. I know the opportunities are very limited especially for fresh grads so I don't know which school can help me better to achieve my goal. I really like Columbia course setting cuz I can learn stochastic cal and other interview related courses earlier, whereas CMU's finane econ and probability in first mini are sth I've learnt in undergrad. However, I heard CMU's class are very close to real industry practice and I also like CMU's career service. Given my background and my career goal, I would really appreciate if I can hear your suggestion on school choice!


Thanks!
I am facing a similar decision like you. Can you tell me which program you joined finally?
 
As a hiring manager, I prefer Columbia over CMU. To me, CMU just seems like a watered down MBA+ a watered down MS CS. Never really been impressed by the program, but that is just one opinion
 
As a hiring manager, I prefer Columbia over CMU. To me, CMU just seems like a watered down MBA+ a watered down MS CS. Never really been impressed by the program, but that is just one opinion
wow, interesting to hear a polarized opinion from the other end, as one of the mds i know only considers candidates from mscf...
 
wow, interesting to hear a polarized opinion from the other end, as one of the mds i know only considers candidates from mscf...
Well it is ridiculous to not consider people from Columbia. Most of the people I see out of CMU know finance ok, but are lousy programmers. Today programming skills are very important and you can learn the finance on the job (but we want people that have shown interest in finance and have domes something about it), but you cannot unlearn bad programming. The ideal candidate now is an undergrad in CS and a masters in quant finance. I cannot see a CS major getting anything of the required programming courses at CMU except maybe an easy A
 
Definitely CMU, Columbia Career services is horrible and too many students to begin with
 
Definitely CMU, Columbia Career services is horrible and too many students to begin with

Thanks for showing people why we like Columbia students better. They are there to learn, not for career services and lack of social interaction
 
I have offers from both. Both schools are crazy expensive, although CMU more so, and I'm torn between which to accept.

I'm hoping to work for a few years before re-evaluating and potentially going for a PhD. If I accept Columbia, I'll be interning while I study to help my employment prospects.

Which do you think has a higher quality of education? Which do you think gives me a better chance of getting a better job?

I've heard that Steven Shreve teaches the Stochastic Calculus course at CMU. Can any recent grads or current students confirm this? If so, does he actually teach or do the teaching assistants do the majority of it?
 
I can confirm that Steve Shreve has taught Stochastic Calculus II for at least the last two years, along with Risk Management II.

All classes at CMU are taught by professors. TA sessions are held separately and no classes are taught by TAs.
 
I'm hoping to work for a few years before re-evaluating and potentially going for a PhD. If I accept Columbia, I'll be interning while I study to help my employment prospects.

If you work, you won't go back to get a PhD. You can forget about it.
 
If you work, you won't go back to get a PhD. You can forget about it.

I don't get the logic behind this reasoning, and I've seen it a few times on this forum. If you are working in a field that is related to what you want to do a PhD in, I don't think you are going to lose knowledge of relevant topics. In fact one could argue that, after being in the industry for a few year, you gain an understanding of where there is need for better research, and choose to do your thesis on that topic.

Also, I came across this interesting part-time phd at Imperial, designed for those who have had a few years of working experience in quant finance. PhD in Mathematical Finance | Imperial College London

^Scroll toward the bottom of that link. Anyone familiar with this program, or have any thoughts on this?
 
Most PhD programs in Mathematical Finance is really theoretical. I mean, they are just playing with probability, stochastic analysis etc, which is quite different from what you would do as a quant. So it's hard to say whether work experience is an asset. Besides, phd usually end up with a faculty position, you might be earning less than being a quant, especially in Europe.
 
I don't get the logic behind this reasoning, and I've seen it a few times on this forum. If you are working in a field that is related to what you want to do a PhD in, I don't think you are going to lose knowledge of relevant topics. In fact one could argue that, after being in the industry for a few year, you gain an understanding of where there is need for better research, and choose to do your thesis on that topic.

Also, I came across this interesting part-time phd at Imperial, designed for those who have had a few years of working experience in quant finance. PhD in Mathematical Finance | Imperial College London

^Scroll toward the bottom of that link. Anyone familiar with this program, or have any thoughts on this?
Part Time PhDs are usually money making schemes. PhD degrees are research degrees so they expect you to do research. If you work, you won't have time to do research. It will be very difficult. You are usually expected to do PhD full time.

MFE are terminal degrees to get a job. After you get a job, it will be very hard for you to go back and get a PhD (not impossible but harder).

If you think you can do it, go ahead and prove me wrong. You can come back and tell us your story.
 
pingu, why do you think that MFE grads won't or can't go back for a PhD after working?
they won't. After working for a while, it will be painful to go back and do a PhD. You will realize the value of a PhD is not as big as you thought it was to begin with.
 
Back
Top Bottom