Replying to a Message

Thomson Reuters

Forum Navigation:

login

FORUMS > General Forum

Replying to Topic: MIT Masters in QFinance?
Created On Tue Nov 21, 06 01:21 AM by JuanFangio

JuanFangio
Member

Posts: 71
Joined: Apr 2005

Tue Nov 21, 06 01:21 AM

User is offline

A week ago, the WSJ talked about MIT preparing a postgraduate degree program in math finance, with UCLA being another university they mentioned as preparing their own program. In addition, MIT cancelled its MBA FInancial Technology option.
Does anyone know anything (starting year, emphasis) about this potential new program?
Thanks

Edited: Tue Nov 21, 06 at 01:22 AM by JuanFangio

CactusMan
Senior Member

Posts: 1160
Joined: Oct 2005

Tue Nov 21, 06 01:39 AM

User is offline

Why would anyone do either of these programs as opposed to CFA?

-------------------------
"Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. But, if you teach a man to fish, he will sit in a boat drinkin' his ass off trying to fish all day." --Unknown

Edited: Tue Nov 21, 06 at 01:43 AM by CactusMan

JuanFangio
Member

Posts: 71
Joined: Apr 2005

Tue Nov 21, 06 05:08 AM

User is offline

the CFA is a certification, not a degree. Two very different things. Besides, one does not learn stochastic calculus or measure theory while studying for the CFA certification

csa
Senior Member

Posts: 275
Joined: Feb 2003

Tue Nov 21, 06 01:16 PM

User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: CactusMan
Why would anyone do either of these programs as opposed to CFA?

From my personal interaction with CFA charterholders, there is such a wide range of people that hold that designation from smart people to people that just study hard to people that just know how to take tests. That is, I cannot ascertain the quality and knowledge about finance of the person just from being a CFA charterholder. However, the CFA designation is highly valued in the industry (for one reason or another). On the other hand, a degree from MIT would most likely signal that you are intelligent and knowledgeable. The mere fact that the person can get in shows the quality of the candidate.

ppauper
Senior Member

Posts: 27381
Joined: Nov 2001

Tue Nov 21, 06 02:25 PM

User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: CactusMan
Why would anyone do either of these programs as opposed to CFA?

they're for different things.
CFA is a course in fundamental analysis intended primarily for fundamental analysis and portfolio management.
An MFE (or a masters in math finance) is intended for quants)

ppauper
Senior Member

Posts: 27381
Joined: Nov 2001

Tue Nov 21, 06 02:28 PM

User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: JuanFangio
A week ago, the WSJ talked about MIT preparing a postgraduate degree program in math finance, with UCLA being another university they mentioned as preparing their own program. In addition, MIT cancelled its MBA FInancial Technology option.
Does anyone know anything (starting year, emphasis) about this potential new program?
Thanks

this article ?

JuanFangio
Member

Posts: 71
Joined: Apr 2005

Tue Nov 21, 06 02:31 PM

User is offline

That's the one. Thanks ppauper.

Sounds interesting that MIT would make the jump to finance, given the reputation they have. Makes me wonder if they'll make it a theoretical program (like Stanford's) or more practitioner-oriented (like CMU's)

CactusMan
Senior Member

Posts: 1160
Joined: Oct 2005

Tue Nov 21, 06 04:02 PM

User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: csaOn the other hand, a degree from MIT would most likely signal that you are intelligent and knowledgeable. The mere fact that the person can get in shows the quality of the candidate.

Don't get carried away with this. I have been involved in hiring before, and the "Look at my degree form Bartham, or whatever "great" school only goes so far. Plus, just because a school has a good name overall, it does NOT follow that all of it's programs are great.

However, it's probably true that someone with a degree from below a Tier II school has ZERO chance in this kind of work or any serious area of finance.

It sounds so narrow. And the expense! Don't you think they are churning out to many financial engineers now? How many could we possibly need?

But, I guess if a person is going to be unemployed, he might as well be intelligent and knowledgeable and with a good degree and be unemployed.

-------------------------
"Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. But, if you teach a man to fish, he will sit in a boat drinkin' his ass off trying to fish all day." --Unknown

Edited: Tue Nov 21, 06 at 05:14 PM by CactusMan

CactusMan
Senior Member

Posts: 1160
Joined: Oct 2005

Tue Nov 21, 06 04:24 PM

User is offline

Oh, it just occurred to me, if you were going to shot for a high-dollar, high profile program in finance, wouldn't it make more sense to go to U. of Chicago? A school that is known for its finance programs?

-------------------------
"Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. But, if you teach a man to fish, he will sit in a boat drinkin' his ass off trying to fish all day." --Unknown

Edited: Tue Nov 21, 06 at 04:25 PM by CactusMan

JuanFangio
Member

Posts: 71
Joined: Apr 2005

Tue Nov 21, 06 09:12 PM

User is offline

Chicago is so last season. With Friedman dead and all.

csa
Senior Member

Posts: 275
Joined: Feb 2003

Wed Nov 22, 06 12:53 AM

User is offline

Chicago and MIT are probably the top two programs in finance (at least in the US). Although the cost of the program is quite high, there are some part-time programs that are available. I believe Chicago's Fin Math offers classes at night which lets you work during the day. Plus, it is also a one-year thing, which significantly cuts down on the burden.

I agree that a degree sometimes only gets you so far. But, at least it is a signal at the initial level and can be the swing vote between you and another candidate. Moreover, a good degree also opens your door to many more opportunities ceteris paribus.

twofish
Senior Member

Posts: 4619
Joined: Feb 2005

Wed Nov 22, 06 04:20 PM

User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: JuanFangioSounds interesting that MIT would make the jump to finance, given the reputation they have. Makes me wonder if they'll make it a theoretical program (like Stanford's) or more practitioner-oriented (like CMU's)

If it is in the Sloan school, then it is probably has to be practitioner-oriented. One thing that is the case about MIT is that there is this giant barrier (both figuratively and literally in the form of the Whitaker Building) between the science people (course 8 physics and course 18 math) and the management-type people (course 14 economics and course 15 management). There is practically no cooperation that I know of between these departments, and this really hurts getting a theoretical quantitative finance program together. Something that I consider astounding is that the math department doesn't have any financial mathematics seminars on its department calendar, and none of the people working in things like the Laboratory for Financial Engineering are from math and physics.

-------------------------
Code Janitor

twofish
Senior Member

Posts: 4619
Joined: Feb 2005

Wed Nov 22, 06 04:31 PM

User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: csa
On the other hand, a degree from MIT would most likely signal that you are intelligent and knowledgeable. The mere fact that the person can get in shows the quality of the candidate.

Actually a degree from MIT means that you've been on the campus long enough to absorb certain cultural values, like the fact that you aren't impressed with people with MIT degrees (and even less impressed with people with Harvard degrees) and you think certifications are fundamentally silly, and you are willing to rock the boat and not put up with "well we've always done it this way" or "this is true because I'm your boss" as an explanation. You learn to constantly ask questions like "why are things this way?" "can we do things better?" and you learn to work like a dog to get things done. And you end up with the support structures that teach you to throw up your hands and say "this is all silly, I'm starting my own company."

Also, admissions processes are fundamentally bogus. The average person who gets into MIT in my experience isn't of significantly higher "quality" than the average person who wants to similar things in other universities (they might do better on the silly hoops people use to judge people, but that's different). What I think makes MIT special is the culture of the place.

-------------------------
Code Janitor

Gmike2000
Senior Member

Posts: 636
Joined: Sep 2003

Wed Nov 22, 06 08:43 PM

User is offline

They always had a finance option for the PhD students and the guys who came out of that track are all great.

The MBA students who opted for the fineng track have a mixed reputation. Andy Lo has some funny stories to tell (...e.g. "why cant we cancel the 'd' in dy/dx to obtain y/x?")

Anyways, Chicago is a theoretical program. If you care about why the Girsanov theorem is true, go there. If you care about finance more then I recommend Berkeley or Carnegie Mellon.

CactusMan
Senior Member

Posts: 1160
Joined: Oct 2005

Tue Nov 28, 06 05:08 PM

User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: twofish...and you think certifications are fundamentally silly, and you ...

Anyone who thinks this is a fool.

Do you think CFA is silly?

Do you think that Society of Actuaries certification is "fundamentally silly"? IT DEFINES THE PROFESSION! (There's a hint to anyone spending money on a unviersity actuary program.)

Maybe you should talk to people who have done a university program, and are now unemployed or underemployed and facing $75,000 student loan debt. See what they think of university programs.

University programs can be valuable, of course. But, do not forget that universities basically have a program for anyting that anyone will pay for (or sign student loan notes and pay for the rest of their lives). Increasingly graduates are finding it difficult to find jobs. A university program doesn't guarantee anything.

As an example, universities turn out TENS OF THOUSANDS of filmmaking graduates yearly, when in reality the number of active, professional filmmakers, who do it for a living, in the U.S.A. is less than 500 (not even enough jobs for the students of a few film classes on many campuses).

But, they keep signing students up, and even get them deep in debt along the way.

Now that's "fundamentally silly".

Edit: Tens of thousands

-------------------------
"Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. But, if you teach a man to fish, he will sit in a boat drinkin' his ass off trying to fish all day." --Unknown

Edited: Tue Nov 28, 06 at 11:07 PM by CactusMan

sunmaker
Member

Posts: 125
Joined: Feb 2006

Tue Nov 28, 06 06:06 PM

User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: CactusMan
As an example, universities turn out HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of filmmaking graduates yearly,

Now that's "fundamentally silly".

Hundreds of thousands of filmmaking graduates? lol

Edited: Tue Nov 28, 06 at 06:07 PM by sunmaker

CactusMan
Senior Member

Posts: 1160
Joined: Oct 2005

Tue Nov 28, 06 07:03 PM

User is offline

Colleges and universities in the US will do any program than anybody will pay for. It's crazy.

And it's sad because these students waste time and money (their own and taxpayer money), when they could be doing something useful.

-------------------------
"Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. But, if you teach a man to fish, he will sit in a boat drinkin' his ass off trying to fish all day." --Unknown

Edited: Tue Nov 28, 06 at 07:07 PM by CactusMan

twofish
Senior Member

Posts: 4619
Joined: Feb 2005

Tue Nov 28, 06 09:09 PM

User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: sunmaker
Quote
Originally posted by: CactusMan
As an example, universities turn out HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of filmmaking graduates yearly,

Now that's "fundamentally silly".

Hundreds of thousands of filmmaking graduates? lol

It's not quite that silly. Those 500 are count only directors. Your typical film is a major industrial production that requires lots of people with some degree of experience in the field.

-------------------------
Code Janitor

sunmaker
Member

Posts: 125
Joined: Feb 2006

Tue Nov 28, 06 10:11 PM

User is offline

What I found silly was the number "hundredS of thousandS". There is no way that "universities turn out HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of filmmaking graduates yearly". That's just doesn't make common sense.

In total there are about 1 million bachelors degrees granted in the USA per year. Are you saying that more than 10% major in filmaking??

According to the NSF* about 1.2 million bachelors degrees were awarded in 2001 and about half of those were in science... so your saying that about half of the non-science majors go to filmaking!?

*http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/showpub.cfm?TopID=2&SubID=5

CactusMan
Senior Member

Posts: 1160
Joined: Oct 2005

Tue Nov 28, 06 11:09 PM

User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: twofish

It's not quite that silly. Those 500 are count only directors. Your typical film is a major industrial production that requires lots of people with some degree of experience in the field.

No, that is a count of all players--people have some serious role. Everybody else just does routine stuff. That's not what people go to film school for.

People don't go to film school to sweep the floor on a set (as if they could get even that job).

-------------------------
"Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. But, if you teach a man to fish, he will sit in a boat drinkin' his ass off trying to fish all day." --Unknown

Edited: Tue Nov 28, 06 at 11:14 PM by CactusMan

FORUMS > General Forum

Forum Navigation:

© All material, including contents and design, copyright Wilmott Electronic Media Limited - FuseTalk 4.01 © 1999-2010 FuseTalk Inc.