From the perspective of top buy side recruiting, if you can get past the resume screens for QR at a hedge fund without Columbia MFE, then you can get past the resume screens with Columbia MFE. Likewise, if you can't get past the resume screens without Columbia MFE, then you most likely won't get past the resume screens with Columbia MFE unless you did something substantial during the program (like getting a top internship placement). There's not a single MFE program that has enough brand name by itself to impress any top buyside recruitor. Why would we care about your MFE brandname when we have plenty of HYPSM undergrad and PhDs to recruit from which are all objectively harder to get in. It doesn't help but also doesn't necessarily harm your profile. Now what's so much more important than the brandname is what you accomplish during the time of your MFE. I think the main benefit of MFE is it gives you an extension in the sense that you have an extra 1-2 years to prepare for a full time job: you can get the best grades in your program, publish impactful papers with professors, more time to interview prep, land top internships, can get F1-OPT status, etc. The difference in curriculum and brand name between Columbia vs MIT vs CMU vs Princeton vs Berkeley vs etc. should be the least of your concerns as at least in my firm, we really don't care about that (and wouldn't even know about the differences in the programs); degree matters more than the exact curriculum (they're all similiar enough anyways).
This would be a hypothetical example of how I would do a resume screen on an undergraduate profile: 1) look at undergrad school: if they're from MIT for example, it gives us a signal because that means at the bare minimum they passed MIT's selection process, 2) look at degree: if they're a cs + math major for example, I like it not entirely because of how applicable it is to the job but because it's typically quite challenging and competitive 3) glance at GPA: if they're 5.0 then this gives me a signal that they're probably hardworking and at least academically smart, 4) look at past internships: if they interned at a competitor then that gives us a signal that they at least passed another firm's selection process but did they get a return offer? we don't want to just collect the leftovers. 5) Do they they have any impressive accomplishments? For example, high putnam scores, IMO/IOI, chess GM, etc. are all indicative that they have a winning mentality. The courses they took are barely considered if at all. I am personally A LOT more impressed by someone that doesnt know any C++ but can learn it in 1/10th the time of everyone else if needed vs someone that knows an adequate amount of C++ but has been learning it for a long time. We want smart, competitive people that are always looking to improve and be the best, we don't want people that studied x/y/z. Studying x/y/z is only important if it gives indication that they are smart, competitive people.
