The most selective MFE, quant master programs in the U.S.

This article has been updated in June 2024.
What are the most selective MFE programs? There is no single metric that will definitely answer this question. Undergraduate GPAs, GRE scores are important indicators. But for many, the following are popular metrics of admission selectivity: acceptance rates, yield rate and applicants per available classroom seat. When it comes to acceptance rates, here are the top 10 most selective quant programs in the U.S.

​

Program	Acceptance Rate	Yield	Applications per Seat	Applications	Admits	Enrolled
Baruch College (Financial Engineering)	7.1%​	89%​	15.8​	379​	27​	24​
Princeton University (Master in Finance)	7.7%​	84%​	18.2​	574​	44​	37​
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Master of Finance)	9.2%​	72%​	15​	1903​	176​	127​
Columbia University (Financial Engineering)	10.1%​	86%​	11.4​	1213​	123​	106​
New York University (Mathematics in Finance)	14.4%​	32%​	22​	529​	76​	24​
North Carolina State University (Financial Mathematics)	16.7%​	73%​	8.1​	269​	45​	33​
Columbia University (Mathematics of Finance)	18.1%​	48%​	10.7​	1200​	217​	105​
Cornell University (FE concentration)	19.4%​	34%​	11.4​	793​	154​	53​
Carnegie Mellon University (Computational Finance)	20%​	61%​	8.2​	781​	156​	95​
University of California, Berkeley (Financial Engineering)	20.8%​	69%​	6.9​	529​	110​	76​

* All data is for the entering 2023 cohort of full-time students

Spoiler: Click to see the data for last year

Program​	Acceptance Rate​	Yield​	Applications per Seat​	Applications​	Admits​	Enrolled​
Princeton University (Master in Finance)	4.8%​	83%​	25​	625​	30​	25​
Baruch College (Financial Engineering)	6.7%​	92%​	16.4​	360​	24​	22​
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Master of Finance)	9.3%​	75%​	15.6​	1913​	177​	133​
Columbia University (Financial Engineering)	11.1%​	69%​	13.1​	1242​	138​	95​
North Carolina State University (Financial Mathematics)	16.9%​	70%​	8.4​	278​	47​	33​
Columbia University (Mathematics of Finance)	18.6%​	50%​	10.7​	1105​	206​	103​
University of California, Berkeley (Financial Engineering)	19.3%​	68%​	7.6​	590​	114​	78​
New York University (Mathematics in Finance)	21.9%​	40%​	11.5​	529​	116​	46​
Cornell University (FE concentration)	22.1%​	32%​	14.2​	811​	179​	57​
Carnegie Mellon University (Computational Finance)	22.1%​	52%​	8.8​	842​	186​	96​

* All data is for the entering 2022 cohort of full-time students

Acceptance rate: The acceptance rate is the percentage of applicants who are admitted to the program. Generally, a lower acceptance rate indicates a more selective program.
Yield: The yield rate is the percentage of the admitted applicants who eventually enrolled in the program. Generally, a higher yield rate is more desirable for programs. It indicates the ability of a program to attract and retain a high percentage of admitted applicants.

What do you think makes a program selective? Let us know in the comments section below.

 

[Lukee]

Interesting, I would've expected Berkeley to have a lower acceptance rate and higher yield percentage based on its ranking here. I wonder if it has anything to do with it being on the west coast as opposed to most other programs being centered around NYC

 

[MikeLawrence]

Interesting, I would've expected Berkeley to have a lower acceptance rate and higher yield percentage based on its ranking here. I wonder if it has anything to do with it being on the west coast as opposed to most other programs being centered around NYC

CMU is the same way though.

 

[Lukee]

CMU is the same way though.

To be honest I was half asleep when I saw this last night and didn't even notice CMU at the bottom. I'd assume that there are a big chunk of applicants that are accepted into both CMU and UCB which would explain the lowish yield percentages. If I remember correctly though half of CMU's cohort each year is placed at their Pittsburgh campus which seems like a disadvantage in recruiting so my original theory still stands. Something that I've noticed now though that I take a better look at this data is how far ahead of the pack Baruch and Princeton seem to be

 

[marcusaurelius]

Phenomenal post @Andy Nguyen. Love seeing this kind of data!

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Many applicants are not aware of it but the yield rate is one of the most crucial factors to admission committees. If you have a reliably high yield rate, you can admit a small fraction of the applicant pool to fill the desired class size. This will result in a lower acceptance rate.
On the other hand, if you have a lower yield rate, you have to admit a larger pool and get a higher acceptance rate. If your yield rate varies greatly every year, it's really hard to predict how many people will accept your offers. This makes a very unpredictable admission process.
If you are here anxiously waiting for your pending admission decisions at various programs, keep in mind that when the adcom does their admission, it's not as straight forward for them as well. You will know that they are waiting for some applicants to commit before they extend further offers.

I hope as our QuantNet members become well-versed in the admission thought process that goes on every year at every program, they can make informed decisions.

Here is an interesting article on the yield rate at MBA programs

MBA Program Admission Yield Comparisons, Connotations & Stakeholders

Discover how applicants can compare MBA programs by analyzing their admission yield rates—the proportion of admitted students who actually enroll.

www.bschools.org

 

[marcusaurelius]

On the other hand, if you have a lower yield rate, you have to admit a larger pool and get a higher acceptance rate. If your yield rate varies greatly every year, it's really hard to predict how many people will accept your offer. This makes a very unpredictable admission process.

And in turn, I believe that demonstrating true commitment to one program increases one's chances (attendance to presentations, speaking to alumni, etc.). I believe this would explain certain admission decisions from NYU Tandon, which turns down profiles who get offers from higher-ranked schools. But this is pure speculation at this stage, without tangible numbers.

 

[Lukee]

And in turn, I believe that demonstrating true commitment to one program increases one's chances (attendance to presentations, speaking to alumni, etc.). I believe this would explain certain admission decisions from NYU Tandon, which turns down profiles who get offers from higher-ranked schools. But this is pure speculation at this stage, without tangible numbers.

Yield protection is a relatively common practice, colleges turn down applicants that have a high chance of being admitted into top programs

Uncover the Secret to College Admissions: What is Yield Protection?

Ever wonder why colleges accept or reject certain students? Learn about yield protection, the hidden factor that influences admission decisions

blog.getintocollege.com

 

[marcusaurelius]

Yield protection is a relatively common practice, colleges turn down applicants that have a high chance of being admitted into top programs

Uncover the Secret to College Admissions: What is Yield Protection?

Ever wonder why colleges accept or reject certain students? Learn about yield protection, the hidden factor that influences admission decisions

blog.getintocollege.com

Learned something today. It makes sense after all. Thanks for sharing!

 

[_quanty_]

Very interesting table! I think the #of applications column is a cool gauge of general interest in each program, and shows that people sort towards the programs they think they have a good shot at getting into (not many Baruch applications).

I don’t know what the acceptance rate column indicates for the quality of the program. MIT and CMU have similar quality students (3.8 gpa, 169/170 Q gre), but pretty different acceptance rates. I don’t think there’s an argument for NC State being a better program than CMU, although there’s a 5pp difference in acceptance rates.

Anyone have a hunch as to why there’s a discrepancy between CMU and MIT?

To be honest I was half asleep when I saw this last night and didn't even notice CMU at the bottom. I'd assume that there are a big chunk of applicants that are accepted into both CMU and UCB which would explain the lowish yield percentages. If I remember correctly though half of CMU's cohort each year is placed at their Pittsburgh campus which seems like a disadvantage in recruiting so my original theory still stands. Something that I've noticed now though that I take a better look at this data is how far ahead of the pack Baruch and Princeton seem to be

Also— there are no statistically significant career outcomes between Pitt and NYC locations of CMU.

 

[_quanty_]

What do you think makes a program selective?

Oh and to answer the question of “what makes a program selective”:

I think we can’t look at this table by itself. If NC State has a low acceptance rate, but incoming students have a 3.3 gpa and 162q gre, does that make it more selective than Columbia with a high scoring incoming class? What if all the NC state students were double Math&CS majors and Columbia were all finance students? In other words, it’s a cool data point but I wouldn’t draw too many conclusions from it.

As always, context matters.

 

[Qui-Gon]

Would be interesting to compare statistics, e.g. mean/median GPA/GRE/etc., of admitted students vs. students who actually end up enrolling. I have a feeling this would make Princeton and Baruch stand out even more as I imagine for all other programs the statistics are (significantly?) better for admitted students than they are for students who actually enroll, e.g. the students who don't enroll do so because they got into Princeton or Baruch instead. Not really related to selectivity, as acceptance and yield rates seem to be sufficient statistics, but nonetheless would be interesting as a gauge of true student quality.

 

[marcusaurelius]

Would be interesting to compare statistics, e.g. mean/median GPA/GRE/etc., of admitted students vs. students who actually end up enrolling. I have a feeling this would make Princeton and Baruch stand out even more as I imagine for all other programs the statistics are (significantly?) better for admitted students than they are for students who actually enroll, e.g. the students who don't enroll do so because they got into Princeton or Baruch instead. Not really related to selectivity, as acceptance and yield rates seem to be sufficient statistics, but nonetheless would be interesting as a gauge of true student quality.

Makes me think of this paper: link

 

[Andy Nguyen]

See how Princeton's admission stats and acceptance rates change over time

Princeton University Master in Finance program - Extra info

quantnet.com

 

[kargo]

@Andy Nguyen Great compilation! Would you have data for other quant programs like those offered by GaTech, Chicago and UW which are not listed here?

 

[Andy Nguyen]

@Andy Nguyen Great compilation! Would you have data for other quant programs like those offered by GaTech, Chicago and UW which are not listed here?

Of course. They will be compiled and published in due time.

 

[lil_Athena]

It's surprising that CMU is one of the least selective schools in terms of admission (according to the data above) yet is consistently ranked among the best programs each year. Does this imply CMU's program has an exceptionally strong ability to turn merely above average students into outstanding job candidates?

 

[Paul Lopez]

It's surprising that CMU is one of the least selective schools in terms of admission (according to the data above) yet is consistently ranked among the best programs each year. Does this imply CMU's program has an exceptionally strong ability to turn merely above average students into outstanding job candidates?

Maybe it has a very rigorous program. Do we also have a dropout rate for these programs?

 

[bootstrap]

It's surprising that CMU is one of the least selective schools in terms of admission (according to the data above) yet is consistently ranked among the best programs each year. Does this imply CMU's program has an exceptionally strong ability to turn merely above average students into outstanding job candidates?

Unlike most other programs on the list that are one-year (ish) programs, CMU's is a two-year program. Assuming that students aiming for 1-year programs vs 2-year programs belong in slightly different pools (there would be overlap of course), then CMU's direct competition is just Princeton.

For example, more mature and experienced prospective students, such as myself, would most likely not consider applying to two-year programs.

 

[QuantCoach]

Unlike most other programs on the list that are one-year (ish) programs, CMU's is a two-year program.

I wouldn't be too sure about this..