Avoid this U of Toronto MMF program: SCAM

[DKoir]

lol - because all real quant students have bad english?

 

[Dataminer]

The dividing line is somewhat arbitrary.[/quote

Baruch, CMU, Cornell, Princeton, MIT, et cetera are all good. The only one I've spoken against is Minnesota. With regard to Toronto, I've just wondered at the spate of well-worded positive reviews that got posted in the wake of the OP's scathing review.

Would you say Rutgers, or UCLA are 1st tier programs? I'm still kinda curious as to what you personally think is the dividing line. Would you say anything above MIT/Cornell on rankings on Quantnet is 1st tier and rest are 2nd and 3rd?

 

[bigbadwolf]

Would you say Rutgers, or UCLA are 1st tier programs? I'm still kinda curious as to what you personally think is the dividing line. Would you say anything above MIT/Cornell on rankings on Quantnet is 1st tier and rest are 2nd and 3rd?

Personally I'd put Rutgers and UCLA as 2nd tier and Minnesota as not even that. The situation has become like law schools, where the majority of schools are lying about placements and starting salaries. Not blaming anyone, mind: the incentive to tell the unvarnished truth is non-existent in this neoliberal era.

 

[danielruc]

I'm an international students so I know little about the program, but even if the well-organized reviews are instigated by someone, they have directly pointed to the problems the OP has mentioned...

And many of them have give out many detail that it doesn't look like that all are faked... unless it's just so well organized...

Finally, I hope that my comment is not misleading anyone that I think MMF is a good program... As I have said at the beginning, I know little... Many thanks...

 

[Ken Abbott]

The situation has become like law schools, where the majority of schools are lying about placements and starting salaries.

Well said.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

I have a few graduates of the program contacted me on how to write a review. As a result, we have 2 more new reviews for a total of 3. Judging from the responses in this thread, I expect more to come. Once the number of reviews reach 10, I would rename this thread to "Reviews of the Toronto Math Finance program" as I think the original title is a bit over the top.

I do appreciate the OP who created a lively discussion and as a result the Quantnet community learns a lot more about the program than ever before. This discussion is now integrated with the Reviews (look at the top), part of the Toronto MMF entry on our Resources.

To leave a reviews
1. Go to https://www.quantnet.com/resources/university-of-toronto-mathematical-finance-program.4/reviews
2. Choose from 1-5 stars to rate the program (you must log in to see the stars)
3. Write a review on the popup box (you can write an anonymous review i.e your username is not shown)

To counter the argument that the recent posts are too well written and overly positive, I think it's helpful for future reviewers to write a balanced reviews, showing the good, the bad and what can be done better.

As the old saying goes, "nothing is as good or bad as it seems", the latter is specially true here so I hope in the coming days, applicants to the Toronto MMF program would be able to learn what its graduates have to say about the program and their experience.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

As another incentive to leave a reviews to your program (any program for that matter), QuantNet reviews are now prominently shown on Google search with the ratings as well as number of reviews

 

[bigbadwolf]

To counter the argument that the recent posts are too well written and overly positive, I think it's helpful for future reviewers to write a balanced reviews, showing the good, the bad and what can be done better.

Not to quibble but while I've argued they're well-written, I haven't said they're overly positive. Were I to engage in damage limitation, I couldn't write better reviews. Effective damage limitation means one has to acknowledge the points of the critics -- but then argue that they've been inflated and exaggerated and are not in fact as serious as claimed. I reiterate that I'm not saying these reviews have been masterminded -- just wondering. There's so much at stake that FE departments have someone looking at these forums all the time and taking remedial action when necessary.

 

[Carlos Nunez]

Really, you graduated from their program without knowing what a contradiction is??

Not only is there a possible scenario where both of his statements hold true (i.e. no contradition), there is a very plausible hypothesis. It seems that even those in favour of the program are in agreement about admissions allowing in students with questionable ability, and taking in 30 students no matter what. The purpose of the program is to make money. So if an unscrupulous program could not find 30 qualified students, they could accept some unqualified students to maintain their level of profit, and flunk out those unsuitable candidates after relieving them of their 40k.



A lot of posters here scoffed at the idea that robbing a student of 40k and a year or more of their life could seriously harm their future. I suspect they have well-off parents who are willing to support a nice lifestyle for them if things don't turn out as planned.

Even the worst people in my cohort didn't get kicked out of the program (some did loose courses, but none got expelled). We even talked to TAs and the program staff and such events do seem very rare indeed. Hence, I'm assuming this person who got kicked out (if that is what actually happened) is a black swan event. The program does accept some weak candidates, but I doubt they are so weak as to deserve being expelled. I can tell you that reality is quite opposite to what you claim: the program DOES want students to graduate. People that flunk are given private classes and a second shot at the final exam. If they didn't care, they could just let them fail and leave it at that. Thus, the contradiction is plain and simple: the program has a first acceptance filter which occasionally fails, and a second filter (used sparsely if at all) which is guaranteed to prevent extremely incompetent and lazy people from graduating. The OP criticized the first filter for not working and the second for actually working.

And as for your second comment, I think it works the other way around. The weakest candidates in my class were precisely those whose parents were paying for the degree. Some were so rich that they could ignore the MMF and pass classes in a vegetative state when they suddenly found out that Mathematical Finance/Financial Engineering was not their "thing". I assure you that people like myself who paid from savings earned in a third world country know better than to waste scarce resources in useless endeavors.

 

[Carlos Nunez]

Not to quibble but while I've argued they're well-written, I haven't said they're overly positive. Were I to engage in damage limitation, I couldn't write better reviews. Effective damage limitation means one has to acknowledge the points of the critics -- but then argue that they've been inflated and exaggerated and are not in fact as serious as claimed. I reiterate that I'm not saying these reviews have been masterminded -- just wondering. There's so much at stake that FE departments have someone looking at these forums all the time and taking remedial action when necessary.

Lol. I'm writing from Colombia, South America, thousands of kilometers away from the UofT radar. And yes, Gideon and several other people who wrote studied with me (2013 alumni). To be frank, I'm of a very critical mindset, and to me things are hardly ever black or white. Yet, I feel that the indictments pushed forward by the OP are arbitrary and coarse. I challenge most of the claims because they seem greatly exaggerated and unrealistic to me. That's all.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Lol. I'm writing from Colombia, South America, thousands of kilometers away from the UofT radar. And yes, Gideon and several other people who wrote studied with me (2013 alumni). To be frank, I'm of a very critical mindset, and to me things are hardly ever black or white. Yet, I feel that the indictments pushed forward by the OP are arbitrary and coarse. I challenge most of the claims because they seem greatly exaggerated and unrealistic to me. That's all.

Fair enough.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

There's so much at stake that FE departments have someone looking at these forums all the time and taking remedial action when necessary.

It's a good thing as QuantNet provides a good window into the current thinking of applicants. There was a time when people would care less about how their program is perceived but as the competition heats up, people pay more attention.

 

[New Trader]

having the read the new reviews;

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics" -Mark Twain

 

[alex yang]

What Carl said in the thread is consistent with what I know about this MMF program at UT.

I did my undergrad in the UT for stats, and also got the offer from MMF last year, and turned it down in the end for many reasons.

Firstly, if you guys really go through the selection process, you surely find it very random & cheap and not quantitative at all. In contrast with its competitor, the selection standard of MQF program at University of Waterloo is extremely high with very hard written test (it makes sense as it has the largest MATH Faculty in the world) and tech-based interviews.

Secondly, MMF program is essentially NOT part of UT, and the CLASSROOM is not on Campus at all. Most instructors are NOT from academia so what they teach is just like baby questions and not quantitative (yes, Jaimungal is only one from Stats department). Can you guys imagine finishing Stochastic Calculus in only 13 lectures? 13 lectures cannot even cover chapter 4,5,6 in Shreve's book (vol 2).

Thirdly, full-time placement is not real. I have a few friends in MMF and some of them were still seeking a position after 4 months of graduation. Admittedly, the internship placement for MMF is good. However, this is a result of forcing students to take the first-come offer. You don't have any choice here.

hi thanks for your information, i am the applicant for 2014 fall, may i ask why you said that mmf is indeed actually not part of UT? is that real?

 

[Canuck]

I

hi thanks for your information, i am the applicant for 2014 fall, may i ask why you said that mmf is indeed actually not part of UT? is that real?

It is part of UofT as the program is governed by the SGS of UofT, the classroom is in an off campus building on spadina across from the Uni that UofT rents.

 

[King]

Hello Carlos,

I want to apply for MMF. do you mind sharing some ideas for the admission and interview.

Hi.

I am a 2013 MMF alumnus. I want to address certain misconceptions introduced by the anonymous OP. It is true that the program accepts some people who would be much better off in an MBA or business-related graduate program. That said, I met many brilliant people too, with obvious Math/programming skills. It is also true that the intensity is insane, particularly in the first term. But this is also logical, since the master only lasts 1 year. As in every university, some profs are engaging and thoroughly interested in teaching meaningful and clear lessons, while others simply cover material at Mach 10. But, again, I think this should be expected in any curriculum. Finally, I agree with the internship bit, since the program could do a better job at placing students in institutions which better reflect their interests and future expectations.

Now the constructive criticism part. I do think that the program should select candidates who are more quant-oriented and less business-oriented, but this is no reason to trash the MMF. At the end, you can always choose your studying buddies and friends. You are responsible for your own learning, and not the people that you study with. There were a LOT of mediocre people in my undergrad, but that never prevented me from studying and learning. Blaming other people for your incompetence is just silly. Additionally, there is a clear contradiction in your statements. First you say that "You fail course twice and you're expel, bye to your 40k." and then "Incoming students getting worse and worse, so far two profs called class "weakest class in history of program." It doesn't make any sense to criticize the program for accepting anyone and then hitting them hard for failing obviously unqualified people. What is it, then?

As for the teaching quality issue, again, I think the opinion is unrealistic. Without giving particular names, I was also critical of many profs, particularly those affiliated with Rotman. Nevertheless, I still think that most profs are decent and know their material very well. I know that Stochastic Calculus is hard and challenging, but seriously, what did you expect? Gym class? I think the profs do the best they can considering the short time frame. Maybe the program should be longer (I'm thinking 1 year and a half), but that would imply higher tuition fees and stuff.

I seriously don't know were the job placement comment is coming from, since most of the people I know already have a job. I urge you to talk to 2013 alumni.

As any academic program, the MMF has its lights and shadows. I only scratched the surface because these issues do require an extended post. Yet, I feel that the OP is dramatizing things too much (even claiming that the program "destroys lives"!) and giving a rather oversimplified and shallow view.

If anything, I think the program would benefit from raising the bar on the TOEFL test to select more articulate candidates.

Cheers,

Carlos Alejandro Núñez Trujillo

 

[Yang_Pop]

I went to UT MMF in 2012 and graduated in 2013. So I am one year earlier than you.

I can tell everyone that in my class every student (except one he is really not into being a quant) found a job within 3 months of graduation, in both buyside (pension funds and insurance) and sell side organizations (banks etc.). The co-op experiences are wonderful and very helpful in landing a fulltime afterward. The co-op (intern) program offers the best opportunity to work in the teams that only the best-of-the-best graduates can get interview chances. The positions include investment/trading floor/risk in the largest two pension funds, risk and front desk in the top five Canadian banks. It true that you may have to accept the first offer you have received, but they are all top-notch. In my opinion, the only drawback of MMF is that it cannot go too deep in academic perspective in just one year study. Rather, MMF offers a wide range of knowledge and tried to prepare you for a job in a way that's time-saving and intense.

It's, however, indeed challenging for students graduate in 2014 and 2015 to land a job because the job market is slow. Also the student quality may vary after my year of graduation. But even till now, our bank and also other banks hold strong interest in MMF graduates. With the alumni network and the reputation in Streets, MMF graduates have access to more opportunities (of course, mostly in quant field).

I hope this is helpful.