COMPARE CMU MSCF (15k) vs. UChicago MSFM (60%) vs. Columbia MSFE (FinEcon)

[Arbitrary]

Hey everyone!

I hope all of you have already received or will soon receive that admissions email you have been waiting for. I know this is an anxious time and for those of you waiting, everyone ends up somewhere, and there is always a way forward, even if you dont receive an offer from your absolute dream school. Right now I would really appreciate your guidance on my own admissions decision. I am lucky to be in a position to have received 3 offers and really need some help to make a well-informed decision in the next couple of weeks.

Please, before you vote, read the whole post in order to get a more informed picture of the 3 programs and their differences, so that the survey is of higher quality. And please leave a comment about why you voted the way you did. I feel like every piece of information, no matter how small the insight, improves your decision making capabilities. So please feel free to leave even the smallest insights, they will be incredibly helpful - to me and all the others trying to decide between any of these programs or an MFE in general.

Generally said, my goal is to join prop-trading, HF or AM (I am most interested in quantitative investment & trading strategies rather than product structuring for example) so my focus is mainly on buy-side opportunities. Which of the universities, based on the information provided below, do you think is best suited for this goal?

A unique insight: I talked to a recent grad of the Columbia Business School MSFE (FinEcon) program, and they implied that internally among the programs, the CBS MSFE is regarded as comparable to the Princeton MFin. With Princeton being historically stronger, but CBS having caught up and perhaps even overtaken in the most recent years in terms of educational quality & prestige. Although an alum is certainly slightly biased I am inclined to at least give it some thought as they seemed very genuine and objective. Looking at the Mini-PhD structure of the CBS MSFE I can believe that at least in terms of education it's at least on-par, and with both programs being housed in the ivy-league business schools, the prestige and network is there too.

Now to compare the 3 programs by important factors when selecting an MFE:

Tuition:

• UChicago (60% scholarship —> 35k)
• CMU NY (15k scholarship —> 82k)
• CBS MSFE —> 140k-150k (scholarship awardees will be sent out in next couple of weeks, but it was mentioned that there is not much scholarship money to go around)

Average Salary Post Graduation:

• UChicago: 143k
• CMU: 160k
• CBS MSFE: ? - No answer from request, maybe you have some information

Employment Outcomes

• UChicago 2022: 41% Trading/AM/HF
  • Companies include: Akuna, AQR, JaneStreet, Millenium, Bridgewater, Neuberger Berman, Chicago Trading, Optiver, Cubist (P72), State Street
• CMU 2023: 42% Trading/AM/HF
  • Companies include: ExodusPoint, Millenium, Squarepoint, Chicago Trading, DRW, Fidelity, Marathon Trading, Northern Trace Capital, Advocate Capital Management, AQR, Blackrock, Blackstone, Elequin Capital, Ergoteles Capital, Flow Traders, Kaust IM, KKR, SIG
  • 2022 had more big-brand HFs, 2023 lots of smaller ones
• CBS 2023: 24% went to Investment Management but sample size is so small and many go on to PhD - hard to compare to other programs
  • Companies of last 2 years include: Jump Trading, Man Group, TCW
  • Due to Mini-PhD structure you have access to jobs usually meant for PhD students (doesn’t necessarily mean higher salary)
  • More Macro-focused jobs

Reputation/Prestige (important for landing interviews):

• UChicago: has a great name and is known for its academic rigor. Ranked Top 10-15 universities worldwide.
• CMU: decent name in general, great name for computer science
• CBS: Best name out of all 3 probably - Ivy-League privilege

No idea what the reputation is for the specific *programs* among *employers*. Maybe you have some information about this.


Other factors:

• Chicago:
  • Prop-Trading & HFT capital, might increase chances of landing a job in the field. (honestly probably won't, networking is just as good in NYC, perhaps even better)
  • Also has a lower cost of living compared to NYC so I would save even more money
  • Curriculum doesn’t look as buy-side oriented, with only few courses on Data-Science, ML, Computation
• CMU is *computational* finance, might be a pro for Buyside (esp. prop trading/HFT) where programming is essential
  • I’ve heard great career services and networking events
  • Apparently insane workload (sometimes unnecessarily)
  • NYC “Campus” is a floor in an office building, No real campus life or amenities
  • Flexibility - The high computational & data science focus opens up opportunities to go into more stable data science roles for Trading or HF, with exit opportunities into Tech (e.g. Google, etc.)
• CBS:
  • Taking mainly PhD courses is very intriguing, might give best overall education.
  • Includes economics and econometric related courses which I think is good to build a well-rounded finance profile. Generally interesting and useful for understanding financial markets.
  • Doesn’t have a “proven” track record for employment because of the small sample size with a good amount going into PhD instead of industry. Heard various students/alum complaining about careers department being lacking. From latest info session with admitted students it seems like they are really stepping this up though and are really honing their focus on placing students into quant roles (however, they did mainly mention sell-side roles rather than buy-side roles)

Summary of most convincing points for each program:

• UChicago: Insane value for money. UChicago is a great university. Good location for prop-trading and cheaper living than NYC.
• CMU: Most rigorous and best ranked. Strong focus on computational side of QF (important for buy side)
• CBS MSFE: Mini-PhD: 10/16 required to be taken at PhD level, 2 years. I assume this makes the program extremely rigorous. Taking primarily PhD courses also probably looks very good on your resume.

I think if I don't get a scholarship then CBS might simply be too expensive as I will be in debt for too long. The other two programs I assume will provide job opportunities of equal level to CBS MSFE. I have also heard from many forum entries that all the really top programs will allow you to land interviews, and it is less important what the school is, as long as it's a top program, and then you will have to perform well on the interviews by yourself. This would imply that the best strategy would be to pick the program with the lowest costs, as I would get the same interview opportunities for all 3, and my performance in interviews will probably be the same irrespective of which program I attend. This is a big assumption though and please correct me if i'm wrong, for example I am still unsure how much networking and career services play a role for landing interviews (but I assume that I could network equally well in all programs).

From all these influential factors this is the big question: Which program is the best *long-term* Return on Investment. UChicago seems really good with only a 35k tuition and a 143k average salary and good employment companies. However, CMU is better ranked and provides a greater average starting salary of 160k, but also is ~50K more expensive. Is the 50k additional cost justified by the ~20k increase in potential salary? Well maybe - A higher starting salary can signal a better salary progression (e.g. people starting with 120k are likely in “standard” sell-side positions were progression is slower, while people starting at 200k are likely to be on the buy-side or in exclusive sell-side positions where future upside is larger). This could potentially indicate that a higher price tag really is worth it for the top programs, but I am unsure if my assessment is correct and would appreciate some guidance.

I would again like to ask you to provide even the smallest guidance or insights you have, even if you think they are redundant or obvious. Every piece of information will help me and others to make a more informed decision.

 

[MikeLawrence]

I'd go with Uchicago unless you have really strong plans to do a Ph.D after a stint in industry.

Cost benefit just doesn't make sense otherwise. I was really happy to see Uchicago's median salary increase like it did this year, it's the workhorse of affordability now and I love it so much. Strange to say about Uchicago, but it's practically blue collar compared to the costs of other top programs and how well it rewards those who show up knowing what's needed.

 

[affine-quant]

In a similar position and interested in the discussion.

 

[joe_boy]

In a similar position and interested in the discussion.

I think many people here just vote based on rankings...Personally, I'll go with Chicago but I understand why some still prefer CMU...If you are confident of your interviewing and networking skills, it would not really matter which schools (among the top 10 let's say) you went to.

 

[rodeo]

I think the best course of action is to talk to the actual alumni (through LinkedIn etc) and make your decision on that basis. CMU is a more established top 3 program in the world and Chicago has only recently been considered in the top 10. The peers at CMU would be more competitive and the course more rigorous. Hence, I voted for CMU. But then, I didn't even get in, so I guess my opinion is just based on things I've heard and read online/ through connections.

 

[joe_boy]

I think the best course of action is to talk to the actual alumni (through LinkedIn etc) and make your decision on that basis. CMU is a more established top 3 program in the world and Chicago has only recently been considered in the top 10. The peers at CMU would be more competitive and the course more rigorous. Hence, I voted for CMU. But then, I didn't even get in, so I guess my opinion is just based on things I've heard and read online/ through connections.

Honestly, one thing that changed my opinion about rankings was that I once did an exhaustive LinkedIn search to see which MFE programs placed more students in firms like HRT, Optiver, Jane Street, and the likes. And I discovered that Boston University (at the very bottom of the ranking list) placed some alumni in Jane Street or other top prop trading firms more than I could find for programs like Georgia, UCLA, and even NYU. I understand some don't update their LinkedIn profiles but if Boston MSMFT students can get into Jane Street (meaning they were considered over candidates with Bachelor and Masters degree from the "top/prestigious" schools, think Harvard, Princeton, MIT, etc.), then it's really not about the rankings of the schools you attend.

That being said, if you gain admission into the very top schools like Princeton, CMU, UCB, Baruch, it is sort of easier to get interviews because of the extensive alumni connection. But if you are attending a lower ranked school, you will have to make up for this by networking, connecting with recruiters and tirelessly attending their career fairs. Get information about which schools they are planning to recruit from (could be the business school or the finance/FE program itself) and find your way there to talk to a recruiter. Then, submit your CV and hope for an interview. During interviews, prepare hard and put in your best. Connect with colleagues in other "top" programs to see how they prep for interviews. You do this again and again until you land a job.

The real competition is not during the admission phase itself but in the job market. Goodluck to us all!

 

[rodeo]

Honestly, one thing that changed my opinion about rankings was that I once did an exhaustive LinkedIn search to see which MFE programs placed more students in firms like HRT, Optiver, Jane Street, and the likes. And I discovered that Boston University (at the very bottom of the ranking list) placed some alumni in Jane Street or other top prop trading firms more than I could find for programs like Georgia, UCLA, and even NYU. I understand some don't update their LinkedIn profiles but if Boston MSMFT students can get into Jane Street (meaning they were considered over candidates with Bachelor and Masters degree from the "top/prestigious" schools, think Harvard, Princeton, MIT, etc.), then it's really not about the rankings of the schools you attend.

That being said, if you gain admission into the very top schools like Princeton, CMU, UCB, Baruch, it is sort of easier to get interviews because of the extensive alumni connection. But if you are attending a lower ranked school, you will have to make up for this by networking, connecting with recruiters and tirelessly attending their career fairs. Get information about which schools they are planning to recruit from (could be the business school or the finance/FE program itself) and find your way there to talk to a recruiter. Then, submit your CV and hope for an interview. During interviews, prepare hard and put in your best. Connect with colleagues in other "top" programs to see how they prep for interviews. You do this again and again until you land a job.

The real competition is not during the admission phase itself but in the job market. Goodluck to us all!

You're absolutely right. In the end, merit will win, no question. Rankings are just a way of making the process a bit easier and surrounding yourself with people (peers and professors) who are more ambitious, talented and aware than the rest.

 

[MikeLawrence]

I discovered that Boston University (at the very bottom of the ranking list) placed some alumni in Jane Street or other top prop trading firms more than I could find for programs like Georgia, UCLA, and even NYU. I understand some don't update their LinkedIn profiles but if Boston MSMFT students can get into Jane Street (meaning they were considered over candidates with Bachelor and Masters degree from the "top/prestigious" schools, think Harvard, Princeton, MIT, etc.), then it's really not about the rankings of the schools you attend.

This surprised me, so I tried to find all the graduates you spoke of.

I only found two alumni, and they both work in trading desk operations engineering.

Did I miss any? What positions are these graduates working in, and can you help me better search? My baseline is still that BU doesn't have a strong JS presence.

 

[joe_boy]

This surprised me, so I tried to find all the graduates you spoke of.

I only found two alumni, and they both work in trading desk operations engineering.

Did I miss any? What positions are these graduates working in, and can you help me better search? My baseline is still that BU doesn't have a strong JS presence.

I'll inform you but first, let me know if you found any student from the other schools I mentioned in those firms.
And then again, don't just do JS, search for other top prop trading firms and compare your results to other higher ranked programs on QuantNet.

 

[MikeLawrence]

I didn't find any at JS from UCLA or NYU, and I won't be looking for GT - because your point still doesn't hold.

There are thresholds to this. The top programs place students into the (much) more competitive roles at JS and similar firms, and they do so with regularity (as much as that exists for these positions). Finding a program that placed a total of two students into one of the easiest positions at a top firm is not a sign of a Dimond-In-The-Rust. The job description doesn't even require C++, and it's an engineering based position.

The difference between BU and UCLA/GT (and in this case I guess NYU? though they are in a bit of a weird position) is still far less than that between UCLA/GT and Princeton, Columbia, Berkeley, Baruch, CMU.

 

[joe_boy]

I didn't find any at JS from UCLA or NYU, and I won't be looking for GT - because your point still doesn't hold.

There are thresholds to this. The top programs place students into the (much) more competitive roles at JS and similar firms, and they do so with regularity (as much as that exists for these positions). Finding a program that placed a total of two students into one of the easiest positions at a top firm is not a sign of a Dimond-In-The-Rust. The job description doesn't even require C++, and it's an engineering based position.

The difference between BU and UCLA/GT (and in this case I guess NYU? though they are in a bit of a weird position) is still far less than that between UCLA/GT and Princeton, Columbia, Berkeley, Baruch, CMU.

You didn't get the point. You should re-read the original post I guess. Apart from Princeton, CMU, and UCB, tell me any other US QuantFin program that places students into those types of firms regularly.

UCB and CMU places probably only about 5 (sometimes maybe 2-3) student(s) in those types of firms per year. And saying the roles are not competitive is such a laugh in the face of thousands who applied and desperately desired those roles.

No need to have any further arguments, when it comes to job search, rankings are not as important as your personal qualities. If you are exceptional, you will get the job. It's as simple as that!

Funny is that there are even folks from schools that have worse rankings than Boston, studied courses like Maths, Stats,, no masters and they are working in those firms. You should spend more time on LinkedIn just as I did before you come back here next time to make a point.

 

[Arbitrary]

I'd go with Uchicago unless you have really strong plans to do a Ph.D after a stint in industry.

Cost benefit just doesn't make sense otherwise. I was really happy to see Uchicago's median salary increase like it did this year, it's the workhorse of affordability now and I love it so much. Strange to say about Uchicago, but it's practically blue collar compared to the costs of other top programs and how well it rewards those who show up knowing what's needed.

I still think there is a case to make that the Cost benefit of CMU is perhaps even better than UChicago. Yes cost is higher, but so is the benefit. The curriculum (at least to me) seems much more "future proof" in terms of my understanding of the buy side positions im exploring - more data science, more ML, more computational finance. This makes me think that what you will learn at CMU will prepare you better and in turn make you perform better long-term at these positions, hence a higher benefit. This is hard to accurately gauge though of course. Also CMU has a higher average starting salary, so the increased cost is somewhat dampened through your higher sign-on bonus and higher savings your first couple of years of working. CMU also has a 5-year career report which looks very promising in terms of buy-side prospects salary progression for CMU students. Also interesting is what alumni report as the most valuable skill for QF success: 1) 53% say programming, 2) 28% say data science, 3) 24% say softskills... exactly what the CMU curriculum is centered around.

This is what puts me on the fence - Chicago is very obviously great value for money (and perhaps even a better overall brand name than CMU), but I think CMU, even with a higher price tag might be a better long-term investment for success in the industry.

 

[Arbitrary]

You didn't get the point. You should re-read the original post I guess. Apart from Princeton, CMU, and UCB, tell me any other US QuantFin program that places students into those types of firms regularly.

UCB and CMU places probably only about 5 (sometimes maybe 2-3) student(s) in those types of firms per year. And saying the roles are not competitive is such a laugh in the face of thousands who applied and desperately desired those roles.

No need to have any further arguments, when it comes to job search, rankings are not as important as your personal qualities. If you are exceptional, you will get the job. It's as simple as that!

Funny is that there are even folks from schools that have worse rankings than Boston, studied courses like Maths, Stats,, no masters and they are working in those firms. You should spend more time on LinkedIn just as I did before you come back here next time to make a point.

Also something to think about - do these programs place into these firms regularly because of the quality of the program, or because of the quality of students that are accepted to that program. Will a top student at Boston have more difficulties in placing than an average student at UCB? No idea honestly lol, but top programs (and universities with brand names in general) will definitely make it easier to get that foot in the door.

 

[joe_boy]

Also something to think about - do these programs place into these firms regularly because of the quality of the program, or because of the quality of students that are accepted to that program. Will a top student at Boston have more difficulties in placing than an average student at UCB? No idea honestly lol, but top programs (and universities with brand names in general) will definitely make it easier to get that foot in the door.

You are right. I honestly can't answer that question. There are so many dynamics to that. There are still some advantages to attending a top ranked institution such as the quality of your peers (due to selectivity, which might not be helpful at times because everyone is egoistic, competitive, and trying to get ahead of you), the professors (their network might be very important), the brand name itself (alumni connections etc.)...I am a fan of excellence so I have nothing against rankings. All things being equal, I would choose a highly ranked school over a lower ranked one.

I've been in the quant industry for over 3yrs and I attended a highly ranked institution in my country but at the end of the day, I found out many people from my school or other top ranked ones are not able to pass the assessment test and ace the interviews to get offers. And I'm sure this is the case in every country. If you have some work experience, you will understand what I am saying. Many people from lower ranked institutions perform better than some.folks from the high ranking ones,,, not saying those schools are better...But that is the reality of the labor market.

 

[WSBquant]

Waiting CMU / didn’t apply for CBS, but chose CMU.

While depends on your qualities, I doubt it will go wrong either way. however chose CMU solely based on its strong employment and rep for all rounded quants

 

[WSBquant]

@Arbitrary which did you end up choosing?

And I saw that you didn’t apply to Columbia MFE. Any reason why you opted for CBS instead?

 

[drakaron]

CMU is better imo

 

[WSBquant]

Also Anyone knows the scholarships amounts for CMU? I saw some had 15k. Didn’t know they gave

 

[Arbitrary]

@Arbitrary which did you end up choosing?

And I saw that you didn’t apply to Columbia MFE. Any reason why you opted for CBS instead?

Decided CMU.

I applied to Columbia MFE also, just haven't put the still pending applications into the tracker (although I assume not having heard back by now means silent rejection). Still I would prefer CBS over the MFE due to the PhD level structure. It really seems to be probably the most advanced education that you will get from any program, and is still customizable by taking PhD level courses from stats or cs departments (or even MBA courses). Also has a stronger research focus than other programs which I think is valuable for quant research positions. Only factor is the price - 150k tuition is simply beyond me, this is 1.5x - 2.0x other programs.

 

[Arbitrary]

Also Anyone knows the scholarships amounts for CMU? I saw some had 15k. Didn’t know they gave

I think mostly 15k or 30k. Remember reading someone post a while back though that they received 70% scholarship so I guess everything is possible.