Stanford MBA vs Berkeley Financial Engineering

Quote from prt_systems:

All I was pointing out is that if you have a good career then leaving it to pursue an MBA which in cost will be more than 300K would be a very unwise decision - although many many people will try to sell you otherwise.
More...

prt,

this is a good point in theory. IF one has a "good career" then an MBA has very little value.

Now, that's a big IF. Many people don't therefore, they need the extra push from an top rated MBA. Whether that return on investment is that great or not is yet to be seen. You still hear stories of people who got into debt going into top mba and undergrad and getting out with less than superb salaries. Doh. Then it takes them 10-15yrs to pay off the student loans.
 
Quote from ssternlight:

Hmm,

I would like to invite all the members of ET to now subscribe to whatever service PRT seems to feel that I have offered on this thread. Please let me know what it was. :D

I also hope that no one is disuaded from seeking out a quality education. It really is one of the big opportunities in life and tends to pay one back many-fold in financial and personal satisfaction.
More...

sternlight - great post. i agree with you 100%. quality education is never wasteful. i'm also glad to see a truly qualified person posting for once :D

all those posts by prt really highlights how naive, ignorant and childish he/she is. also, pretty unoriginal too.

in any case, it is questionable that prt has any qualifications except for being a great bullshitter.

now back to my monte carlo sims. :D
 
Quote from prt_systems:

Nope. I decide who I take orders from and it is not you .....

Good luck in your future endeavors ....
More...

to illustrate, this shows that he truly knows jack. i asked him some questions, and he refuses with this. this reply is standard for those who are posers
 
Wow. I find myself in very similar circumstances to the original poster, minus having applied anywhere yet.

I have been doing a little research on the subject, so I feel a little qualified to comment. There are plusses and minuses with each route.

The MBA is a well known degree- getting one from a well known institution is definitely a door opener. Its a very general degree- finance, trading, IB are just some of the posibilites possible with it. The flip side is its a very popular degree- there are lots of unemployed and under employed MBAs out there.

The MFE ( here I lump together all the variants- theres no naming convention. Some go by Masters of Fin Eng, Masters of Mathmatical Finance, M. of Quant Finance, etc) is a somewhat new program at most places. A great number of world famous institutions dont even offer this flavor of a degree. Its a very focused professional degree, compared to the more general MBA. Its highly math intensive- mostly stochastic calc, probability, etc. To give you an anecdote, a friend of mine in his second year of the MFE program tells me there were lots of MBAs taking the classes as electives, and most dropped out ASAP.

The demand for these degrees is not 100% known- though many expect it to take off. The role MFEs are going for is much more quantitative. The traditional quant has a PhD in Econ, Math, Natural Sciences or some other quantitative field. A large number of firms simply will not look at you for this role with out a PhD- right or wrong, its a fact. Its then debateable if the MFE gets you into these roles at all. The flip side argument is that MFE is a much more focussed education. The PhD in Chem proves you can handle the quantitative aspect, but you still got to cut your teeth on the finance material. A MFE grad would have this background under his belt already.

I have heard that a much more realistic way to employ the MFE is to get a role supporting the Quants. From there you have to prove yourself, etc.

An informal poll of the MFE's graduating my alma mater puts their salaries significantly south of what I am making- say by 30% or more. Now it may be that its because this isnt a top tier we're talking about, and its a new and thus unknown program, and maybe those kids dont have the work experience I do (front office techie for huge B/D), but I'm really hesitating to jump into something where I would get my career change but at a significant upfront cost (tuition) and a significant long term cost (lower salary).

On the other hand, I want to some day try my hand at entreperneurship, and start a company to play with OPM. I cant do this with a pure tech background, even working on the street. Re-education will be required for me at some point.
 
As it stands currently, if you want to work for a top tier Wall Street firm neither will get you into the game at a high level.

If on the other hand you are looking to other sectors or are entrepreneurial and want to work as a consultant for instance then either will do (both are good schools).

If you want to work for a fund or start one on your own, you should assess your native abilities first. Do you have abilities already related to your goal? If not take the course which will help you to acquire the skill set you need. If "yes", look at the degree path as a bargaining chip. The MFE has an approximate value equal to a hard science degree short of a Phd. Thus a person who evaluates you for employment is going to have to think a bit more about what you bring to the table.

Good luck

Steve
 
To get a job in S&T at a bulge bracket bank or get one of those coveted PE/HF jobs, you will almost definitely need an MBA from a top tier school. To enter a top bank, you have three options: A) you went to a top undergrad school that is heavily recruited and you went in as an analyst. B) you went to a top tier MBA program and went in as an associate C) you have an advanced degree and entered as an associate (mostly in more quant intensive areas).

Now, the key is to go to a school that is heavily recruited. The earning potential of an MBA decreases significantly when you don't go to a top tier school (think top-10/15 USnews program).

So now ask yourself, do you want to be an independent trader or move into more institutional settings. If your goal is the latter (which, regardless of what people on ET say, provides high earning potential AND a higher probability of succeeding) then go to a top tier MBA (or MFE) program. There are not many big fund guys that never worked for an institution and solely worked in an arcade.

You should check out the various career surveys of the MBA programs as well. Here are Harvard and Stanfords:

http://www.hbs.edu/mba/recruiting/data/industry-career.html
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cmc/reports/documents/report07.pdf
 
Just food for thought. Not coming down one way or another on the topic.

Have you considered Operations Research? It seems to be one of the most versatile math/stat degrees I've come across.

Here is Wikipedia's descritpion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research

Columbia offers a Masters in OR with an emphasis in Financial Engineering. Best of "all worlds" perhaps?

Here is the page for the Columbia program:

http://www.cvn.columbia.edu/deg/ieor/mfms.php

Regarding the issue of where you went to school. I agree that it all depends on where you want to work AND that it really only matters for a small segment of jobs/people.

I've had a working life of approximately 20 years. I've never been asked where I went to school. Ever. That is in three distinct jobs, first in medicine, next in health care IT, and now in information security.
 
As a 68 yo I think you need to decide if you want to keep working for others or want to eventually control your own business.

If your undergraduate is a BBA with Finance major then a MBA is a waste of time unless you are trying to impress the recruiters.

If you already have such an undergraduate and want to run a business, I suggest a law degree instead of a MBA.

Good Luck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top