COMPARE University of California, Berkeley MFE vs Carnegie Mellon University MSCF

[Zeldino]

I applied to both and chose CMU as a first choice simply because it's longer so it should be less intensive

 

[eager_to_learn]

unhappy_mscf - Can you tell us specifically what you think is mis-represented here about MSCF , and your reason for choosing Berkeley?

Zeldino - Did you have an admission from both, CMU & Berkeley?

Thanks everyone

 

[Zeldino]

eager_to_learn

If you're asking me whether I was admitted, no, I have just submitted my application for CMU a couple of days ago and will submit my app for Berkeley by the next deadline (I see now that I should have said "intend to apply" rather than "applied" in my previous post)

 

[neoz]

The PhD in mathematical finance would be useful primarily for front office quant roles at a bank but a MFE would get you in the door as well, without the long-term commitment.

I would go with CMU MFE as it's a much more comprehensive program. The program is fast-paced and covers a lot of material. It is not for those that are quantitatively-challenged. The majority of the people go to S&T or quant programs at major banks.

I hate to break it to you but pursuing the MFE degree to "keep your options open in the future" is not really the right way to look at it. A lot of the career paths are well-defined and there's not much lateral movement. Not sure exactly what options you are talking about but I think the MFE is too weak for something like high-frequency/algo-trading. If you want to keep portfolio management doors open as well as S&T, I think a MBA might be more useful from a marketing perspective. From a knowledge perspective though, the MFE wins by a landslide.

However, with your undergrad background, I think you could probably get into a S&T program at a bank without doing the MFE.

 

[unhappy_mscf]

I would recommend speaking to current students and alumni before going to MSCF. Ask them hard questions. When I chose my program I just went off this websites rankings. Big mistake.

I applied to both and chose CMU as a first choice simply because it's longer so it should be less intensive

That logic is simply incorrect.

 

[Rajat Goyal]

unhappy_mscf could you be more specific on what is misrepresented about the CMU MSCF here?

Haoran: could you be more specific on why you would choose the Berkeley MFE?

Thanks.

 

[Zeldino]

That logic is simply incorrect.

Why is it incorrect? I talked to several people from Berkeley and they all said that the program is extremely intensive, since it's cramped up in 12 months, including the internship, so it's basically a 9 month program! Whereas CMU people told me that the program is intensive, but they didn't seem so overwhelmed as UCB people... Am I missing something?

 

[Kittu]

My 2 cents here...
Disclaimer: I am a current MFE@Berkeley and my opinions might be biased.

I chose Berkeley over CMU for a couple of reasons. Some personal, some general. They were:

1. MSCF is a math/pricing intensive program vs Berkeley being a more well rounded program. Personally, I did not want to go to a super math intensive program.
2. 16 months@MSCF vs 12 months MFE. Discounting the same type of work that you may get out of both the programs, your ROI in MFE program is significantly higher. The added tuition + living costs + time costs do not result in any form of added compensation. Just a layman way of calculating ROI.
3. Historical placement figures at Berkeley were always better than those of MSCF. Not a great metric once you are into the program, but as a prospective student, you always look at these numbers.

I would not deny that Berkeley MFE is intensive. But it surely is not too stressful for people to yield in or give up. If you are willing to work in quant finance with 12-14 hours of work days, you better be prepared to work hard. Yes we work hard towards our deadlines...But we also chill out and have fun a lot of other times...If someone is bothered about intensive work at Berkeley...well....think again about your industry of choice!

In the end, you cant go wrong going to either of the schools(given both programs are fit for you)...Both have respectable and well established programs!

 

[neoz]

Rajat, I think you meant unhappy_mscf.

Let me offer some insight with some sarcasm involved but there is still a lot of truth here. Misrepresented is the wrong word here. I would characterize it more as not living up to one's expectations. For the prospective student, it is only natural that after checking out the website in all its hyperbole and fancy presentations, you conjure up an image of the most life-transforming educational experience possible. You do "research" on these forums and convince yourself that this program is the ticket to riches.

The problem is if you set ridiculously high expectations, you will inherently be disappointed. (Think 2008 Obama election - how'd that turn out?) This is not an issue about MSCF but rather about MFE's in general. Most people jump into this degree without having a clear understanding of what their career goals are and how they can use this degree to position themselves for that role.

The fact of the matter is this degree will help open doors but it will NOT turn you into a quantitative genius overnight. Courses are 3 months long; do you really think you're going to become the master of xyz subject in 3 months by doing some homework problems (i.e. copying hw off your buddies) and taking a final exam? That's why if you don't have a good mathematical background and what I like to call sheer "brainpower", you will undoubtedly struggle in the program. The MFE is more like a crash course across various areas of quantitative finance, giving you familiarity with the theoretical intuition. You're not going to learn some hidden knowledge that no one knows about. You probably won't even use 90% of what you learned in the MFE program when you go on to your actual job.

Now who will this degree benefit? For the graduate fresh out of undergrad, I believe this degree makes them more competitive and knowledgeable than other candidates and you're only spending an extra year and a half so it's not that bad in terms of opportunity cost. Plus most of these people are international students so this helps their resume with a US university brand-name. For the career-switcher who's trying to reset/reinvent, I would say this degree can help but it's not as automatic as it was pre-crisis. Back then, an IT guy could do MSCF and most likely land a front office position quite easily. Nowadays, that's not a given anymore.

It really depends on what you want to do. For most of those quant prop shops, your MFE knowledge isn't really going to help you. If you don't have raw brainpower, you'll quickly get exposed during their interviews. So I would say if your goal isn't a sell-side trading or quant role, I would explore other degrees. But if it is, I think MSCF has a solid reputation. The only two programs that can be mentioned in the same conversation are probably Berkeley's and NYU's. I've met people from both programs and in my opinion, your ability to land your dream job is more about you as a person i.e. how you think/act...than it is about what program you went to. I think every program has relationships with particular banks so perhaps one program can you get you an interview easier. All I can say is that I can vouch for the MSCF program from personal experience.

 

[neoz]

In response to Kittu's remarks, I would say the following:

1. I agree that MSCF is not for those that are mathematically challenged. Even if you have no interest in stochastic calculus, you'll still have to pass it. However, I disagree that Berkeley's program is more well-rounded. One could argue that it's more biased toward finance than quant in the same way that MSCF is more biased toward quant than finance. It looks like MSCF offers more programming than Berkeley so well-roundedness is subjective.

2. I don't think time is that important. You have years ahead of you to work. The extra 4 months is irrelevant, unless you're looking to save money.

3. Placement figures are overrated when we're dealing with the top programs. If we're talking like 98 vs 99%, that literally means like 1 or 2 people. I think if you're a decent candidate, you will have no problem getting a job from either program. You should be more interested not in placement figures, but where the placements were at.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

There is a ton of misinformation on this forum about MSCF. I agree and would choose Berkeley.

Can you elaborate? Are there any specific things that you learn here and later found out not true?

 

[unhappy_mscf]

" The majority of the people go to S&T or quant programs at major banks."

This isn't true.

 

[neoz]

I don't know about this year's class but in previous years, that was the case. Though I must admit, probably half of that number includes people who went to London/HK/Singapore offices as well. Banks are trimming down now so I'd imagine placement on sell-side could take a hit.

 

[eager_to_learn]

if your goal isn't a sell-side trading or quant role, I would explore other degrees.

So lets say if someone is interested in asset management or buy side research or prop trading or anything else which is buy side, CMU is not the place to be?? Or would you say that MFE / MSCF (or any variation of that name) itself is not the right degree? (and if so, then what IS the right degree ???????)

 

[Math Andrew]

So lets say if someone is interested in asset management or buy side research or prop trading or anything else which is buy side, CMU is not the place to be?? Or would you say that MFE / MSCF (or any variation of that name) itself is not the right degree? (and if so, then what IS the right degree ???????)

That's simply not true.
We do have interviews with prop trading firms and asset management firms.

 

[neoz]

Look, I don't want to burst anyone's dream here. I'm not saying it's not possible to get interviews with prop trading firms or asset management firms with a MSCF, it's just the odds are much more in your favor for a sell-side role.

Take a look at http://www.tepper.cmu.edu/master-in...ners/recruiting-partners-2011-2012/index.aspx

I count 27/55 that went to a sell-side bank. The rest are scattered across a variety of areas, including prop shops and asset management firms. My point is there's a reason that banks make up practically half of the placements, since they have formal recruiting programs and take X number of students every year. The other positions are sporadic and will change from year-to-year.

If you look at the list and see a few people that went to a particular prop shop and think well that could be you, I wouldn't be quick to make that assumption. It really depends on your individual background. A lot of those algorithmic trading roles go to people with CS/Eng/Math backgrounds prior to MSCF. For example, if you're an econ major, I wouldn't expect to get very far in a Jane Street or Getco interview.

For asset management, I think the odds are much more favorable than a prop shop. Sure, there are courses that are irrelevant for asset management, i.e. Sto Calc, but there's a good mix of other courses that would make you competitive for those kinds of jobs. Just looking at that list, you can see that there's only 1 person per asset mgmt firm. It's going to be a tight pool and those firms might not hire every single year from MSCF. However, I think you could see the number of buy-side placements go up as banks cut back on their hiring, primarily because the MSCF recruiting team will have no choice but to target more marketing there.

 

[Math Andrew]

Well, I agree with you on that.
Many prop trading firms just require you to solve brainteasers for their interviews. No finance knowledge is required.
But, if you do have a proper quant background and enroll in one of the top programs, then you'll have more possibilities of getting interviews, both with the sell and the buy side. This of course applies to other degrees as well - the ones you have mentioned.

 

[unhappy_mscf]

Take a look at http://www.tepper.cmu.edu/master-in...ners/recruiting-partners-2011-2012/index.aspx

The most important part of the page is at the top where they say 59/69 have accepted offers 3 months after graduation. Nice, $120k and 18 months down the drain for 10 students out of 69.

 

[neoz]

10 does seems like a high number to me but it's definitely possible in this hiring environment. While not having something for 3 months is not ideal, I think it's understandable given the current market. You have massive layoffs on the sell-side. You can't expect it to be like the golden years where people had multiple offers before graduation.

This just gives more credence to my earlier point. If the traditional avenues of hiring, i.e. banks, are cutting back, it's not that easy to find substitute placements elsewhere as companies that are going to hire 4-5 students at a time don't just appear out of thin air. I know Rick and the professors go on road trips to market MSCF to new employers and that's probably why the numbers aren't even worse, but there's a limit to what they can do. If you think 2011-2012 was bad, imagine how the 2008 class probably felt.

So blame it on the economy but you can't honestly think MSCF is like a scam.

 

[mfegrad]

but there's a limit to what they can do.

this.

a lot of it is on the students, as well. most come from environments where getting good grades has always been enough. newsflash: that won't cut it anymore. many students don't follow the markets at all, couldn't give you an investment pitch (for any product), and say that they want to trade without knowing anything about trading or what products they want to trade and why.

cmu teaches you a lot and brings employers to students, but the students have to close. cmu can't drag you across the finish line.

granted, some students might just have a string of bad luck, but i'd be willing to bet a good amount of money that those cases are far less common than students going into interviews and dinging themselves within the first few minutes.