The good: Brand name, Faculty, Curriculum
- MIT reputation and brand name
- Access to main campus classes (if you're interested in CS/Math) and HBS
- Best diversity of students amongst other financial engineering programs (with the possible exception of Princeton), even with the large Chinese population, there's amazing people from all over the world here.
- Very flexible curriculum (if 18 month) and great choices of classes, with stellar faculty who are the most accomplished in finance
The bad: OCR & Accessibility to Prof's
- On campus recruiting is a goddamn mess, nobody seems interested in MFins, few to none dedicated setup of coffee chats with companies tailored to resume/backgrounds. For the amount this program costs, Emily and Laura (CDO advisors) should personally take my resume and hand it to companies that are a tailored fit to my background (See Linda Kreitzman, Berkeley).
- Professors are hard to know outside of class- they're always busy with PhD students/projects, most interactions out of classroom with TA only. Office hours are mostly with TA's.
- Scholarships/Fellowships seem to be awarded really weirdly/randomly, it's supposedly based on "diversity" but I know a lot of really accomplished and smart individuals who add so much diversity to the program yet never got a single $.
The ugly: Class Size and Sloan Brand Dilution
- I believe the new class size is as large as >140, which is a 25% increase from the previous class size of 116, which by itself was massive. The way the adcoms are diluting the class sizes is tanking the program's reputation and ratings.
- Recruiting is an awful slobbery mess, and the dilution of Sloan's brand and introduction of a new micromasters program makes the whole thing NPV negative. Honestly, there's little to suggest this program is anything but a cash cow if it weren't for the stellar faculty and piggybacking on MIT's reputation.