MBA vs. MSF - Investment management

In which cases is it better to go for the MSF than the MBA? In which cases is it better to go for the MBA instead of the MSF?

Obviously, this will depend on my interests and what not, so here's a little context for answering the question.
1. I doubt I'd get into a top 15 MBA program, since they're pretty competitive. I could probably get into an MBA program in the 15-30 rank.
2. I'm interested in investment management. More specifically, I'm interested in the jobs that involve investment decision making. I'd like to be a portfolio manager for an investment management firm, such as HF, PWM, etc. If things went well, it'd be awesome to start my own firm, or rise to managing director or partner within an another firm.
3. I intend to get the CFA, regardless of whether or not I get an MBA or MSF.

 
brian2426:
having the CFA can never really hurt you.

i wouldn't get an mba unless its from a top 10 school.

i'm getting an mfin and my plan is to work after that and try to get into a top 10 school with more work experience.

Would you say the MSF is a better degree than a non top 10 MBA?

 
Best Response

MSF --> Banking or Trading MFin/MSCF --> Quant/Trading

As for MSF being better than a 15-30th ranked MBA it is a tough comparison. If you want banking then a 20th ranked MBA wont really help you (unless the school has a lot of regional banking recruiters coming to it). A MSF won't necessarily make you more competitive for FO simply because you will still be coming in as an analyst along with UG's. The real advantage to a MSF is the fact that you will come in as an analyst, but since you have a much deeper and thorough understanding of the subject, all things being equal, you should excel much faster.

I would save your MBA for a top school. Example, if you went to say a school down south and wanted to work in NYC, but missed recruiting, you might do a MSF in a northeastern school so you will have a new alumni base to work from and position yourself in the vicinity of the place you want to work. You use the MSF as a way to get another shot at breaking in and then after your 2 years as an analyst or whatever you go back and do a top 10-15 MBA.

As far as a MSF not being an MBA, that is true and the general consensus in banking. If you have work experience, leadership experience, etc and you are interested in F500 finance then it is another story. Many places are just looking for a grad degree before they promote and the MSF will fit the bill.

Lets face it, the MBA has been discussed into the ground on this board and I think the general theme is the value you get from a MBA at a top school is the network, brand and reputation vs any huge knowledge gain (especially if you have an UG in business). A MSF on the other hand will absolutely give you a huge gain in understanding, comprehension and usefulness within the field of finance. You have to weight what you are looking for and what you want to do 5-10 years out.

 

Thanks Anthony. Can I ask you a few more related questions? You seem to be talking about banking, but what about asset/investment management? Second, you mentioned location of the MBA. How bad is a non-top 10-15 MBA if there's not many programs of that caliber in the region? For example, if someone wants to work on the West Coast, there are only a few programs in the top 30 in Washington, Oregon, and California. Namely, Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, and University of Washington (hopefully I didn't leave out any). Stanford, Berkeley, and UCLA are the only ones in the top 15 or so, so if you can't get in there, you're stuck with two programs in the 20-30 range, namely UW and USC. Is it really that bad to go to these programs, given there's not that many West Coast programs ranked higher? It's not like the East Coast where Harvard, MIT, Columbia, NYU, Penn, etc, are not that far away.

 

I would think the same advice applied for AM/IM also. Now about your ranking questions, even schools that might be "mid tier" can still have a lot of regional recruiting. You might be benefit from emailing some people in the field you want to work and directly asking their advice.

I still think an MBA should be saved until you have the right work exp, etc.

 
AnthonyD1982:
I would think the same advice applied for AM/IM also. Now about your ranking questions, even schools that might be "mid tier" can still have a lot of regional recruiting. You might be benefit from emailing some people in the field you want to work and directly asking their advice.

Thanks.

AnthonyD1982:
I still think an MBA should be saved until you have the right work exp, etc.

I couldn't agree more!

 

i did a bba in finance and before starting grad school i debated mba vs msf. i wanted to take the cfa and get into equity research and AM/IM/trading. i didn't want to be a ceo or executive. i didn't want more marketing/management/ org behavior etc like my bba had. i wanted to learn more about finance. so i started my msf last year at fairfield university (figuring the school is surrounded by these types of firms and oncampus recruiting would be great). i'm close to finishing and have been looking at all the career links on the BB sites, asset management sites, etc. and they are all the same. undergrad gets you into analyst slot, grad degree gets you associate slot. the problem is all the associate slots are listed for mba only. so now i'm stuck. i'm not an undergrad senior so i can't apply for the analyst role. i'm not an mba so i can't apply for the associate role. i've been told the msf will get grouped with the undergrads but how do i apply for the training programs. even the nonBB firms that are reputable asset management firms still show the same setup. i had a finance professor who heads the quant research for a BB say the same thing. his bank would not take a msf. they would only considers mba (i would think the msf would be a better fit). an alum who spoke to students at my school said the same thing for his very well known AM firm. they would only take mba. there's no way i can afford an mba from a top 25 and that would mean redoing all my finances courses since most schools seem to state that they wouldn't take transfer classes and apply them to the new mba. i now may have no choice but to start an mba at my school which does allow an overlap so my msf courses would be applied to the mba in finance to cut down on the time in school (will still take me another 3-5 semesters). at least with those three letters M B A on my resume i can at least start to apply for stuff.

yes networking helps a lot but what good is the msf if it's going to be dismissed by firms. i'd recommend the mba over the msf to anyone considering it and to start networking asap and to get ready to apply for internships and summer training programs at the very beginning of your first mba semester. (at least now i can use my msf to show my dedication and improvement over my bba performance...a stoning stone).

my undergrad was a nontarget and i did great in finance courses but didn't care too much for the other courses (my mistake); i still did well above 3.0 gpa. i have almost 4.0 in my msf so i'm improving my resume but have no internship experience. i can't bank on the random internships that my school gets and having started the mba first would've allowed me to apply directly to the firms i'm interested in. even on-campus-recruiting from these firms still list associate roles as MBA and everything else is directed at undergrads.

should i apply to the mba associates roles anyway or the analyst roles but preface the application as saying i'm a grad student?

 

Firstly,MSF is new in the States,in Europe it is pretty standard.It is far more technical than an MBA,so it is suitable if you want to go to AM or trading,but a more generalist MBA is better for Banking.You also need significant work experience to get to an MBA,so if you want to get a degree in order to find a job,then go for the MSF.If you are already working or you are able to secure a job,the work for some time and choose between an MBA of good MSFs (Princeton,MIT),where WE would give you an advantage.

 
judowned:
Going for an MBA straight out of undergrad is almost always a bad decision.

Indeed.You may be accepted in some decent programs if you have strong academics,GMAT, and an interesting story,but you will be trapped in your job search.Most companies will be looking for people with WE,so they wont be interested for inexperienced people.Hiring MBAs is not only about hiring people with an MBA,but also hiring people who have a few years of WE.These two go together.

 

Both degrees are good for AM. MSF is more specialized, so the alumni networks are smaller but more focused. MBA is obviously broader, which can pay dividends down the road if you decide AM is not for you.

Since you want to get into AM, look at the CFA partner schools since you can work toward completing the CFA exams while in school:

http://www.cfainstitute.org/partners/university/Pages/cfa_program_partn…

 

Really great answers guys, I truly appreciate your responses.

Higheck, I graduated 2 semesters ago from a non-target with a degree in Finance, and have been interning in a boutique IB shop since graduating. It was only til recently I figured out that it was AM that I want to do. I haven't applied for anything within AM. I intend on going for the CFA within the next year and was also thinking of graduate school but I would like to secure the experience beforehand. I wasn't sure if MsF would be something worth doing, or if I should stick with working on getting experience and just doing the MBA + CFA route as What-to-do suggested

#1: "Have you seen ______'s analyst. She's only about 3 weeks of anorexia away from looking hot." #2: "Maybe 4." -GSElevator
 

A CFA would be best for asset management. Since the MSF is based largely off CFA materials, the MSF would most directly relate.

With that said, name brand is what generally opens doors. Don't go into an MSF program if you get into Wharton.

My general rule:

MSF>MBA (outside of a T20 program or a top regional program)

 

I think the Princeton MFin might be on par with a top 5 MBA, but your career path will be more narrow. Then again, if you know you want to stay in finance, it might make sense to not spend 2 years when you can get a highly respected graduate degree in 1 year.

 

It’s the college you graduate from that is most important. A business school that is highly ranked could open doors for you in terms of opportunities and getting ahead in your career. You might want to look into Bentley MBA programs with an emphasis in Finance. Accountancy, business analytics, economics of financial marketing might be good options for you. The MSF utilizes a hands-on approach, but you’ll find that Bentley also focuses on field-based learning and requires students to work in a consulting capacity in Business Process Management and in a Field Project.

 

lots of redundancies with what you are doing. IMO: MBA > CFA = MSF.

An MBA is often about re-branding (or bolstering your branding), and I just don't see how an MSF would add that much value to your application. I'd look for a job, gain a year or two of experience, and then apply to an MBA program. You're bound to get much more out of it.

Capitalist
 

Everyone talks about OCR.. but remember that you're competing with UGs and people that have excellent backgrounds even though they are at an MSF for one reason or another. So I guess I'm just saying that the path won't be easier, its just as hard, be prepared to compete, and make sure its not a 'YOU' issue.

'Before you enter... be willing to pay the price'
 

It's probably worth getting some work experience under your belt before considering MBA programs. If the best way to do that is to first get an MSF then go for it. It's tough in this economy, anything you can do to put yourself ahead is worthwhile.

 

I always encourage people looking to do an MSF to make sure they get some sort of an internship in place before starting the program. Makes recruiting so much easier and really shows that you are serious about working in this industry.

 

Well, most folks here will (likely) tell you that unless the MSF is from a "name brand" school with established placement stats, it is not worth the investment. 60K is expensive for a degree without a good notion of placement.

That being said, the program itself looks pretty interesting, and will likely give you some sort of advantage.

I probably should not be helping you, as I am from the East Coast and have limited knowledge of schools on the West Coast. I was just curious as to why you were set on Pepperdine.

Best of luck man.

"That dude is so haole, he don't even have any breath left."
 

Also, although there is limited info on Pepperdine (I checked), you should check out MSFHQ if you have not done so. You might find an option you had not considered?

"That dude is so haole, he don't even have any breath left."
 
TraderJoe1976:
If you want to stay in LA go to USC. They are # 1 in LA with an incredibly loyal alumni base in LA.
Yeah I've definitely heard about the loyalty. They call it the "Trojan Mafia" - hypothetically, lets say I don't get into USC (well include UCLA too, since its pretty tough to get into), would you say that getting an MBA isn't worth it then? If I plan to stay living/working out of LA.

And yea, thanks! I will def look into the MSFHQ stats

 

I did an MSF a couple of years ago and what I found was that coming out of school you'll be spending a lot of time explaining that you did not get an MBA and politely implying it is better. Now 2 years later (with a little work exp.) I find myself applying to jobs which require an MBA (not terribly unsuccessfully) so that being said, I think an MSF is a great option if you are going relatively soon after undergrad and once you get passed your first job post-MSF will not have much trouble selling it as an MBA equivilant.

It will also give you a lot more depth of your finance knowledge. I remember in my program the MSFs (considerably younger with less real world exp.) tutoring MBA and EMBA students in finance. (Slightly funny but great networking)

Also I would say having done a 1 year program, trying to work and get an MSF is a pretty tall order. I tried to work part time and it definitely hurt my GPA. I had to cut down my hours quite a bit and didn't graduate with as stellar a GPA as I was hoping. So consider taking the time off if you can (which also opens up your options of school!)

Best of luck with your decision!!

 
pdoher01:
I did an MSF a couple of years ago and what I found was that coming out of school you'll be spending a lot of time explaining that you did not get an MBA and politely implying it is better. Now 2 years later (with a little work exp.) I find myself applying to jobs which require an MBA (not terribly unsuccessfully) so that being said, I think an MSF is a great option if you are going relatively soon after undergrad and once you get passed your first job post-MSF will not have much trouble selling it as an MBA equivilant.

It will also give you a lot more depth of your finance knowledge. I remember in my program the MSFs (considerably younger with less real world exp.) tutoring MBA and EMBA students in finance. (Slightly funny but great networking)

Also I would say having done a 1 year program, trying to work and get an MSF is a pretty tall order. I tried to work part time and it definitely hurt my GPA. I had to cut down my hours quite a bit and didn't graduate with as stellar a GPA as I was hoping. So consider taking the time off if you can (which also opens up your options of school!)

Best of luck with your decision!!

This is great stuff! I appreciate the input...with this MBA career advancement requirement. How important would you say the rank of the mba program is? Top 20 or so? Or is it just necessary/relevant to have an mba degree, lets say from Pepperdine.
 

I don't know too much about the Pepperdine program. I would imagine that it is mostly Pepperdine UG's or foreign students. Considering you have work experience and are not foreign (I assume) you should push for some type of scholarship or tuition assistance.

You could also go to online route and do an MSF from Indiana or Penn State. Both are reputable schools, would be cheaper than Pepperdine and allow you to work. I'd recommend Claremont which is slightly outside LA, but you will need to increase your GMAT (think 700). If you want a Cali based MSF with a shot at OCR and placements, CMC is your best shot.

Frankly, I cannot believe that CMC is the sole main stream program on the West Coast. I think USC would be an ideal competitor, but I haven't heard anything about them starting a program. Stanford doesn't need to offer it and UCLA has a solid MFE program. If you were near San Fran I would recommend the Financial Analysis MSF that USF has.

As mentioned above, the MSF is still misunderstood, but that is slowly changing. Every year more and more of us graduate and seek jobs, mainly in finance. I'd imagine that close to 1,000 MSF students graduate from the various programs so sooner or later HR will have to get with the program. Until then get your elevator pitch down and sell yourself and the benefits of the degree.

Personally, I think we are all value investors right now in the MSF space. Outside of the T15 schools you are seeing a drop in application because people simply cannot justify 2 years off for an MBA with limited ROI. Doing a specialized degree with only 1 year off and typically less tuition lowers the hurdle rate. I wouldn't be surprised if more schools within the T16-40 space begging offering MSF programs (I think you are seeing the beginnings of this). Makes financial sense and will augment declining MBA applications/admissions.

 

I think it is all relative based on what you want to do. There are a lot of people on this site who seem to think not having a top 20 MBA would be the WORST thing that ever happened to them. I think that is a little extreme. Yes there are some firms that are going to require a highly ranked MBA to get in. These are going to be the firms that demand your SAT scores and think of other equally elitist measures to weed out the riff raff.

My personal opinion is who really wants that? Sure getting in early to these firms will mean a higher salary, but for how long? You get to a point where if you have good exp. and are smart the $$ becomes pretty comparable. And you also have to take into account the opportunity cost of an MBA (2 years and lot of student debt). In some cases it is totally worth it. But if you think out 5 years down the road and can be in the same place you want to end up, then do whatever makes the most sense now.

I think the biggest problem with a lot of the things I read on this site (sorry not trying to get on a soapbox or anything) is that people seem to think there is one and ONLY one path to get to where you want to go. In the real world it just isn't like that. People who are smart and make good decisions excel, those who are not do not. I don't have a top 20 MBA and maybe I'm talking out of my ass, but at the end of the day that's just a number. My rule on schools is have-I-heard-of-it? If pretty much anyone in the country has heard of your school (the exception being heard of it because it may not be great like ITT Tech) then it is probably ok. I think most folks have heard of Pepperdine so you are pretty safe.

The other thing I would add to the MSF vs. MBA debate is this whole idea of school rankings. Since the MSF is a little less well known than the MBA my opinion is those rankings become less important, because of the specialty nature of an MSF.

 
pdoher01:
I think it is all relative based on what you want to do. There are a lot of people on this site who seem to think not having a top 20 MBA would be the WORST thing that ever happened to them. I think that is a little extreme. Yes there are some firms that are going to require a highly ranked MBA to get in. These are going to be the firms that demand your SAT scores and think of other equally elitist measures to weed out the riff raff.

My personal opinion is who really wants that? Sure getting in early to these firms will mean a higher salary, but for how long? You get to a point where if you have good exp. and are smart the $$ becomes pretty comparable. And you also have to take into account the opportunity cost of an MBA (2 years and lot of student debt). In some cases it is totally worth it. But if you think out 5 years down the road and can be in the same place you want to end up, then do whatever makes the most sense now.

I think the biggest problem with a lot of the things I read on this site (sorry not trying to get on a soapbox or anything) is that people seem to think there is one and ONLY one path to get to where you want to go. In the real world it just isn't like that. People who are smart and make good decisions excel, those who are not do not. I don't have a top 20 MBA and maybe I'm talking out of my ass, but at the end of the day that's just a number. My rule on schools is have-I-heard-of-it? If pretty much anyone in the country has heard of your school (the exception being heard of it because it may not be great like ITT Tech) then it is probably ok. I think most folks have heard of Pepperdine so you are pretty safe.

The other thing I would add to the MSF vs. MBA debate is this whole idea of school rankings. Since the MSF is a little less well known than the MBA my opinion is those rankings become less important, because of the specialty nature of an MSF.

I agree. there are many different routes to success.

I also want to quote something I posted before.

Imperialian:
I think there are several factors not raised here so I thought I will raise them.

The key thing is the branded school, not MBA or MSF. Last I checked in Linkedin, there are tons of Indians with MBAs from India and they want to break into Investment Banking too. So will a bank hire a someone with a Princeton MSF or that person with an MBA from India? I would dare to go further and say the person with the MIT or Princeton MSF will be better placed that someone with an MBA from a non target in the US. If you really want to rank, here it does: Branded MBA > Branded MSF > Non Target MBA > Non Target MSF > MBAs or MSFs from overseas nobody has heard of.

Now it seems that the branded MBA is the best choice yes? Not necessarily. Certain sectors in banking require you to be young to break in. For example, if you are 35 years old with 10 years of non relevant experience, your chances of breaking in will be less higher than someone younger. The thing is most MBAs require you to have a certain amount of experience to be considered for the program unlike the MSF program which you can even join right after graduation from undergrad. An MBA job applicant will be older than other candidates and the result in the hiring process between someone older with a branded MBA and someone younger with a branded MSF is unclear.

Also, your MBA is the LAST Chance for you to rebrand yourself. You will be surprised that some people are still unclear in their 30s on what they want to pursue in life. If you had taken the MSF, worked a few years and want to move on to something else, you still can take an MBA. If you had taken the MBA, that is your last chance to rebrand yourself. You cannot take another MBA again. There is no such thing as double MBA (well, even if there is, I doubt it is worth it).

Lastly, like what ANT said, there are many factors that affect whether you get the job or not. You need to work on networking. Aggressively. You also need to be open to other job opportunties. There are many areas that pay as well as Investment Banking but not that well advertised, like real estate, commodities trading and energy trading.

 

Well it is difficult for me to justify spending 60k for a Masters in finance. If I were to pursue this route, yes I would highly likely then be hired by a firm, but on the flip side I would have to take a full loan out for the tuituion, books, rent, food, i mean all associated costs, plus the opportunity cost of not earning the income that I do at the moment - so in reality, were looking at 140k (all in one year). This is not to say, the economy gets worse in a year & job prospects diminish.

I'm strictly looking at it from a cost-benefit analysis. I mean I know friends who graduated with either fin/econ degrees and when they get hired - firms would pay for them to take extra acct/fin course, seminars, designations, etc.

I see it more beneficial to study for the CFA level I exam, pass, and try and get hired into a paying job.

Furthermore, getting into a branded Mas. of fin. would definitely open a lot more doors then trying to network and do things on my own.

If you were in my position - what would you do to get into a finance role (preferably real estate finance)? w/o spending all the cash for a degree

 

This is an interesting scenario. I definitely hear what this guy is saying, but here is what I would do in his situation (if anyone cares! haha)

Option A: Study for GMAT until it's above 700, then take the test. Apply to all the top MSF program around the world. From there it should be easy to break into IBD.

Option B: Keep working for a couple years, get promotions, transfer to a better company, etc. Then study for the GMAT until it's above 700, then apply to the top US MBA programs. From there it should be easy to break into IBD.

The wonderful thing about this plan is that you can try Option A right now, and if doesn't work out (can't score above 700, can't get into top program, etc.), you can always resort back to Option B.

I have a tender spot in my heart for cripples, bastards, and broken things
 

This is exactly the advice I was gonna offer. For any non-quant finance roles, an MBA is preferable to an MSF. Given that the OP did not go to a name brand school, it is even more imperative that he get a top notch pedigree on his resume for the credibility, network, and access to great recruiting. I think dropping $60K on a mediocre MSF program is pretty ridiculous. He should work more, excel, get promotions, transfer to a better company, do some interesting extracurricular such as volunteer work abroad, nonprofit board, pick up some cool hobby such as hang gliding, crush the GMAT, line up strong recs, and write compelling essays. Do all of that, and you have a shot at a top 10-15 MBA program. Going to such a program will transform your life, both professionally and personally. An MSF program will not give you that.

 

If you get into CMC you most likely won't be paying full freight. You also don't need an MBA if you stay in finance. As I watch people in my cohort I do not see any going back for their MBA yet. And people have been directly promoted to associate and some are now in PE.

Also, it isn't always plausible to just do an MSF. If you can't get into the right field from UG, don't have a high enough GPA or brand, or just don't get the career traction, then an MBA might not be possible. In many cases the MSF allows you to re-brand, get a higher gpa or break into a blue chip career which improves your MBA options.

 
denwhat:
Hey guys, so I have been working at a dead end back office role for a couple of months and trying to figure out ways to desperately get out. Its at a clearing firm doing client tax reporting and the lack of challenge is really driving me insane. My goal is to break into a front office role (m&a would be a dream) at a boutique or MM firm.

I was set on going for an MSF/MMS from the typical list of schools (Vandy, Villanova, BC, Duke). However, a few of my colleagues suggested I work for another year or two and try to go for an MBA instead as it may be easier to break with that vs a MSF. Personally, I am not sure if this is the greatest idea as I do not know if my current job is good enough experience for a top MBA program at a target school.

My background is from a non target large state school. I have a degree in finance with a overall GPA of 3.4 with a major GPA of 3.8. I took the GMAT in the spring and bombed it with a 620. I am planning to retake it in the next month or two just in time for 1st round applications if I chose to go the MSF route.

So what do you guys think? Just go do MSF or work for another year or two and MBA? Thanks in advance.

See, 2 more years in BO really isn't going to make you stand out for a top MBA program. That coupled with your 3.4 and 620 make for an up hill battle. Not crapping on you or saying it can't be done, but with MBA competition continually heating up, having 2 years in the BO isn't going to make you stand out.

As for an MSF/MMS, if you do it, have a plan and get a great GPA. Look at the Duke program seriously since the brand is so strong and the course work will be less quantitative.

Your 620 isn't a death sentence, but if you have time I would definitely try and do better. Since it is good for 5 years you can use it for an MBA later on down the road if you want. A year of work experience will help your application and you 3.4 in finance will be fine for getting into most schools. I'd focus on the usual suspects (as you mentioned).

So start hitting the books and reaching out to admissions. The touring Graduate Student Round Table will be starting up soon and it is a great chance to meet adcoms from all those schools if you can get to an event. I try and go to a couple of them so we can talk face to face if you want.

If you do want to avoid and MSF I would suggest you get your network on and focus on Big 4 or Corp Finance. Always do FO wherever you go. I'm sure you could leverage your BO experience to get into a F500 or better company.

 

Hi denwhat, many of us who worked for 1-3 years after undergrad often run into your dilemma.

One thing I would ask: is it too late to apply for 2012 MSF? If so, I would assume that you are going to work for another year before applying to either programs. And since you suggested working for another year or two (assuming that is sufficient to apply for a MBA since you didn't state how many years of work experience you already have), so I guess your option would be to achieve a higher gmat score and apply for a 2013 MBA.

 

Hi Ant, thanks for the reply. I've actually read a lot of your previous posts and I find a lot of them to be helpful.

That's basically what I'm thinking. If people from FO have trouble getting into a top MBA...how does a crappy BO job help? I am planning to retake my GMAT before November in time for 1st round either way and hope to get at least a 700. I'm not sure how I did so poorly the first time as the lowest practice MGMAT CAT I've gotten was a 680 and I'm generally a good test taker.

Do you have any more info on the Graduate Student Round Table? Also, any tips on how to reach out to adcom and bring a good impression? I've already emailed a few schools asking some general questions and might make an appointment with meredith to visit nova, but I'm always open for new ideas.

@Funderbold: I think I have time to apply this year to MSF for next year's intake. I plan to retake the GMATs in the next month or two and hope to get something near 700. I have about 1 year job exp under my belt but my concern with MBA (if i apply next year with about 2 years exp.) is that my work wont be as impressive as other applicants.

 
denwhat:
If people from FO have trouble getting into a top MBA...how does a crappy BO job help?

I think what you are failing to understand here is that top MBA programs only look at your job as a small part of your total application. You have FO kids who have boring backgrounds and lack "uniqueness" that top MBA programs look for, while at the other end of the spectrum you have people from BO who have incredible stories that they can craft into essays.

If you have identical candidates and the job is the only difference, in that case, the FO person will probably get in over the BO person, but whose life stories are identical.

As long as you are not a boring person with no significant life accomplishments, I would not worry too much. Just get that 620 up another hundred points and you should be all set.

 

http://www.msbusinessdegrees.com/

Yeah, Meredith is solid. If you come to Nova let me know and we can get drinks. I would just email the admissions people, tell them you are interested and would like to speak to an alumni if possible. Try and meet with them, talk to them on the phone, etc. Don't be annoying or anything, but that personal touch does help.

 

MSF placements can't really be compared to MBA placements because of the student body. MBA's generally are looking for a job after graduation, are more mature and focused, etc. MSF students range from those serious about finance and finding a job to those looking for a 5th year experience.

Most every MSF program I know provides the proper tools for students, motivated and competent, to get a job. Many of those who end up without a position upon graduation didn't utilize all the opportunities provided to them. Not all, but many.

 

I see, instead of the MSF I have been considering the MFE and I do enjoy the higher math and coding. I see wall st itself moving more toward quants even for analyst roles at the most basic levels. Considering ow technology is revolutionizing everything from trading to equity research my bet is that an MFE will be a hedge against the changes coming in the future years and provide a more stable career with technical skills that are harder to replace. An MFE student can be taught corporate finance in a short period of time while an MSF student is locked into less of a quant role and easily replaced by MBA's and undergrads.

From a job secuirty stand point MFE's I think are the best over MBA and MSF.

 

Plenty of material on this topic.

MSF

  • Younger applicants (0-2 years work experience)
  • You'd come in as an analyst
  • 1 year graduate program focused on finance
  • Top school is MIT. The rest are good schools with strong regional presence

MBA

  • Older applicants (3-5 years work experience
  • You'd come in as an associate
  • 2 year graduate program focused on business (with specializations)
  • Most top schools offer the degree.
 

Thank you for the insight, I appreciate it. I am currently a Siena College an I am a finance and actuarial science double major. I play soccer here at school which is why I am not at a big state university like Rutgers or Penn State. My grades are pretty good (3.4 GPA) and can still improve over the next few years. Would it be possible to get into a good MSF school even though I am not from a target school? I know target schools are important.

 

alright man, in terms of my scheduling those are my hardest classes. I find math a bit more challenging then I do finance or CS classes. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

 

If you had trouble with calc I-III and lin alg. then I would reconsider a MSF. Most of them are quant based.

"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets." -John D. Rockefeller
 

Trading us tough right now in general. Most msf placements tend to be in banking. I know of a few in trading. The MFE would be better in theory, but a lot of MFE guys go into risk or say analytics. Not sure if that's what you imagine when you think trading.

 

I'll have a year of Sr Financial Analyst experience and one year of operations analyst BO experience when I apply.I also have a year and half in mortgage (First job out of college sucked)

If I go the MBA route I'd have two years as a Sr Financial Analyst. The issue is I went to a "Where is that University?' and have a 2.9 GPA.The only real positive I have is that I didn't get lower than a B in any math class

 

Whatever you do, if you're actually trying to break into trading...an MBA shouldn't even be a consideration. It does nothing for you, nor should it because you won't learn really anything valuable at all to a trader.

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."
 

Would second the notion that legwork might get you further than Georgetown OCR for MSF. I've spoken with their adcom folks on multiple occasions and while they are part of the McDonough School, I didn't get the impression that you'd get to participate in OCR alongside the MBA students. That was discouraging, as well as the price. Although, the alumni network is huge. Just my 2 cents.

"Now go get your f'n shinebox!"
 

Don't do an MBA if you want trading.

I know a lot of MFEs who wind up in trading. The ones who don't, at the right program, often end up in QR, strategy research, at hedge funds, or occasionally a big data like Palantir or in IBD. In today's environment, I would not consider those inferior outcomes relative to trading.

If you can get into a program like CMU, Berkeley, NYU, Cornell, or Columbia, it's worth thinking long and hard about. All of these programs get a lot of placements in S&T at banks not to mention quant portfolio roles at large hedge funds. I know you ruled out Princeton and MIT but there are other comparable programs. (I would also say that MIT covers a broad spectrum and is designed a little more for banking and consulting and a little less for trading than other programs mentioned, tho I would not downplay it as a way in). I would also mention that these sound like brand name schools that would be tough to get into, but it's easier than you would think to get into a Master's degree- especially as a US Citizen, assuming you can meet the prerequisites for math/programming. As your career progresses, your undergrad becomes less important and your current job/ GRE score/ recs become more important for grad school.

Networking can help some in trading. I'd pursue that route before getting a $60-$120K Master's degree. But compared to IBD, who you know and what your pedigree is is less important than how you interview as well as relevant education and experience.

If what you really want is just trading- not institutional brokerage- take a look at some of the Chicago prop shops. Spot, Sun, Jump, Allston. See what backgrounds people have there. My guess is that there are a lot of MSCS guys and people with undergraduate or graduate degrees in STEM- from good but not necessarily from elite schools. To break into an NYC bank, you may need a little more branding, but I don't think Jump would be biased against a guy from UIC or IIT Chicago who was an expert at _____. (Where _____ is something that can help them significantly improve their P&L).

If you can't get into a program right now, it does not mean that you can't get into a program in a year or once you have the prereqs. So some patience is in order. Meantime, keep working on the CFA, keep developing your math background, keep developing your career, and try to collect interesting stories and experiences.

That's my sketch of the world of trading jobs and roles for MFEs. My sense is that an MFE would be useful and that having some sort of a technical background makes it easier to succeed in this business. However, I am all for finding a way to avoid spending $100K on a graduate degree as well- or perhaps networking your way into a better job and THEN getting a graduate degree when you need a break or want to make a later career move. $100K can still buy a decent apartment in Chicago- why spend it on a degree if you can avoid it?

 
Tximu:

What about a MBA in a more Finance oriented schools such as Wharton or Booth? I think Columbia has a especial value investing course... Not exactly the best for trading but at least investing... And every year there are placements in BlackRock, PIMCO...

I have met one trader with an MBA during my time on the street. She also had an MD and was trading pharma stocks.

There are no absolutes in this industry, but in general if you want to be a trader, an MBA usually does not help you too much. (Sales is a different story)

I will be the first person out there to plug a great MBA program like Booth. If you want to be a PM or a Banker, it's a great program. But I don't see a transition from MBA to trader happening as smoothly.

 

Lots of misinformation going on this thread.

No graduate degree will help you 'learn' how to trade. You can learn the technical's of the capital markets/fundamentals at B-School and MSF. You can learn programming and data analysis at MFE. But neither will teach you "How to trade" or even what a trader does.

If you are a quant- go get your MFE. If not? Go get an MBA. Forget what people on this board are saying- there were plenty of sellside trading desks and AM firms that were on campus to recruit at my B-school. When I got to the desk- Plenty of guys on my team had MBA's (granted I was on a HY desk which is more fundamental).

MSF would be slightly more difficult because it doesnt have the same brand recognition. Which, in reality, is half the battle.

"Sounds to me like you guys a couple of bookies."
 

Agree with BillyRay. I trade rates on the buy side and more than 50% of us have MBAs, even higher with the more senior guys who run desks/divisions. Depends what kind of trading you are doing. Sell side trading can involve a lot of math based on desk but in macro trading rates (my role) it is more important to understand fundamentals and read tons of research and decide on a view. Actual trading once the position is on can only be learned by trading.

Human tendencies tell you to take small profits if your position goes up and hold on to your position if it goes down to wait for it to get back to flat. This mindset will leave your portfolio with a bunch of tiny gains and a few massive losses leading to poor returns. You have to learn to avoid this to be profitable.

Everyone here is also discounting the soft skills learned in the MBA. While they may not increase your P&L in year 1 they will most certainly help your career long term in dealing with people and situations. Full disclosure that I have my MBA

 

Most MBAs I speak to admit that it is largely a raw credential- that the coursework is similar to a finance undergrad. Otherwise it is a two year party with lots of networking. That being the case, nobody worries too much about networks or credentials or prestige in trading roles, at least in my sample set (IG CDS, Equity Vol on the sellside; Quant portfolios and HFT on the buyside- lots of friends at Chicago prop shops)

I don't think it's a hindrance- certainly at a BB, but I don't think it buys you anything. And in the wrong culture (EG a Jump, RennTech, or a quant portfolio at a major fund), an MBA doesn't make you the best fit.

Most jobs in trading don't require an MFE, but some jobs do- or at least require the knowledge you would learn in an MFE. There's usually a lot of empty seats that are waiting to be filled by a competent person with a quantitative background. Ideally OP should be able to land a trading job without a graduate degree, but I think the MFE/MSCS route opens more doors in trading with less people trying to squeeze through them than the MBA route does- at least in the groups I've worked in.

 
IlliniProgrammer:

Most MBAs I speak to admit that it is largely a raw credential- that the coursework is similar to a finance undergrad. Otherwise it is a two year party with lots of networking. That being the case, nobody worries too much about networks or credentials or prestige in trading roles, at least in my sample set (IG CDS, Equity Vol on the sellside; Quant portfolios and HFT on the buyside- lots of friends at Chicago prop shops)

I don't think it's a hindrance- certainly at a BB, but I don't think it buys you anything. And in the wrong culture (EG a Jump, RennTech, or a quant portfolio at a major fund), an MBA just isn't a good fit.

Most jobs in trading don't require an MFE, but some jobs do- or at least require the knowledge you would learn in an MFE. There's usually a lot of empty seats that are waiting to be filled by a competent person with a quantitative background. Ideally OP should be able to land a trading job without a graduate degree, but I think the MFE/MSCS route opens more doors in trading with less people trying to squeeze through them than the MBA route does- at least in the groups I've worked in.

I am referring to BB's in NYC. Prop shops, and trading in Chicago for that matter, is a whole different beast.

Up here, credentials still hold a lot of water, either by education or experience. If you want 'in' at a reputable bank, you better come from an Ivy or an elite private school, or a top 10 B-School. Hell, my first boss was a U.Chicago MBA and the 2nd was HBS. Did it help them trade? No- but it damn sure got them in the door.

MFE vs. MBA for trading isnt even a suitable argument because they lead to different paths. An MFE does not have the fundamentals to trade distressed bonds nor the desire. An MBA does not have the technical ability to trade exotic options nor the desire to.

But like you alluded to already, you dont need a graduate degree for trading. In fact, the desk has no upside hiring an expensive MSF/MFE/MBA over a undergrad. But those degree's at least will give you a fighting chance.

"Sounds to me like you guys a couple of bookies."
 

Sure. If your best way to land in trading at a bank was an MBA business schools ">M7 MBA, it was probably worth it. An MBA also gave you a lot of options outside of trading and probably continues to give you options.

But... for someone who knows they want trading, a Columbia or NYU MFE can save them $100K and a year and get them to the same spot on the trading floor. It might also give them access to more desks and give them better tools for trading roles that have been getting more technical.

An MBA was probably the right decision for you- especially if you didn't know you wanted trading before you started school. I'll concede an M7 MBA certainly helps you get an interview at a BB. But I don't think MBAs help at Chicago prop shops or in some other areas of trading. And I think a Stanford MFE gets the same BB trading interview a Harvard MBA gets- only though he's paying less for the degree, learning stochal, and getting fewer options outside of finance (which OP seems to suggest he may be less interested in). It's all a matter of preference, but why pay for valet parking if you drive a rusty honda with a broken 8-track that nobody is going to steal?

They're two very different degrees. I would not plug an MFE for someone who wanted to be a consultant or do equity sales or have a lot of industries to pick from. But for trading I feel like an MFE gives you most of the advantages an MBA gets (in a field that, outside of sales, is fairly heavy on technicals and light on soft skills), with several other advantages on top of that, at 25-50% less cost in terms of time and money. This is all assuming you have your heart set on trading rather than getting a degree that gives you lots of options.

 
mbavsmfin:

mfin/mfe all the way for trading. The trading desks have pretty much stopped mba recruiting.

Again, not true.

Recruiting traders at BSchool has slowed, but not dissimilar to any other graduate degree for trading. Almost all the BB's offer S&T associate programs for top programs. Do they take hire a ton of MBA's? No. But I can assure you that they hire a TON more MBA's than they do MFE's and MFIN's.

But honestly- no degree leads to getting a 'seat', especially considering that trading desks are getting smaller. Hell, I have met more MFE's working in risk or as pure Quant's than I have in a trading role. But just my observation.

"Sounds to me like you guys a couple of bookies."
 

To be fair, there are a lot of MBAs working in risk, IT, and Ops as well. Sometimes folks with MBA business schools ">M7 degrees. The only thing more annoying than taking out $100K in debt and spending a year getting in school to land in risk is to do the same after spending $200K and two years.

If you have a US passport, if you have prior relevant finance-related experience (ops, risk, IT are all fine), and you get into a school like NYU, Columbia, CMU, or Princeton, you are probably going to land somewhere in the front office. Or at the very least you'll land in the front office in your 2nd job with your network if that's what you want.

MFE programs are a lot smaller than MBA programs. HBS has about 1000 students. Princeton has 20-40 students depending on the year. So it's natural that we're a little less common than MBAs, but my sense is that most people in the top tier programs make it into trading or QR roles.

 

You have an engineering background and work in engineering. You're best fit and most natural move would be an MFE. MSF is CFA type material. Wouldn't really use your background. If you want to do corporate finance, as in F500 corporate finance, I would just try and lateral internally. Or get into one of those corporate rotational programs. No need to do the MSF. And if you are at a F50 company and do well, get promoted, etc, along with a good GMAT, I can see you being competitive at T15 MBA programs in another 2.5 years or so.

 

Your comment about MFE makes sense, but it involves a good amount of coding which isn't my biggest forte. That's kind of why I don't want to follow that path.

Even though I'm in a F50 company, it is located in CT and I don't plan to stay in CT for more than 1-1.5 years. That being said, I still wouldn't mind staying at my company if the company created opportunities for engineers. Due to the talent shortage in Aerospace Industry, the company is trying to hold onto their engineers as much as they can. This means if you started off in engineering, there is virtually no opportunities outside of any sort of engineering role. Now within engineering, promotion aren't as rapid. To move from associate eng. to engineer it takes 1-2 years, then to move to senior engineer it takes 3-4 years, and to move to staff engineer it takes 5-7 years. And usually it's hard to get any leadership position until getting to senior engineering role.

Now knowing these, what would you recommend as an alternative to MSF/ MFE that can help me break into finance?

 

My case is a little different as I was thinking about making a career switch from Engineering to finance, but just like you I was trying to decide between MSF and MBA. This is what I found:

In terms of long term earning potential: No Masters degree (unless MD or JD) can beat the earning potential of a full-time, 2 year MBA. Of course, there are exceptions, but that's the general consensus.

If you can get a decent job out of college: work for at least 2, 3 or 4 years and pursue an MBA. If you can't get a decent job out of college, MSF will probably be a better option.

In terms of which MBA program?: The advice I've been getting is that one should always try to get into one of the top 20-25 MBA programs. If not, then go to the cheapest Top 50 MBA program that's accessible to you.

 

An MSF is not something you plan on. It's something you fall back on in case things don't go well, i.e., if you go to a non-target and you're part of the 99% that don't break into real finance.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

Also interested. Depends on what you want to do.

I assume you could complete the MBA at Simon relatively quickly? I'm also an MSF student and have wondered the same, but I paired mine with the CFA (will be graduating in December and taking Level 3 in June) hoping that combo will be equivalent to a solid/top MBA program. Definitely a good combo for AM/ER, but if you want to do IB, or other, the MBA is probably preferred...curious as to others' thoughts.

Also depends on cost/benefit. I actually had the opportunity to interview at Simon but the price tag was too high for my liking, so I went with a mid-tier program part time + CFA. Riskier, but was able to add 2 more years of experience + CFA (and scholarship money) to the equation. I don't think it's as strong as a top MBA, but then again I'm not looking to work at a BB or break into top IB, as it is I am in the process of breaking into FO from MO at a large asset manager...so again it largely depends on what your end goal is, and working backwards from there. Remember, experience matters a ton, too.

 

Simon is ranked 5th in what? No one considers Simon to be the 12th best school for finance in the U.S. No one serious, at least. I would not get an MBA from Simon. I work with a few Simon MSF's and MBAs. THe MSF's speak highly of their program; the MBAs don't. If you're going to get an MBA, make sure it's from a top 20/15 program.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

also interested, and at the same spot really. Feel free to PM.

however, Rochester's Simon is not 5th or 12th. Those rankings are jokes. Simon is mid-tier stuff. even without the M7, the NYU Stern and UCLA/Berkeley would solidly place above Rochester. My program would look good on those rankings too, but if you don't reference the P&Q MBA Ranking (less about the order rank but the group tier), you'd usually overestimate the value.

 

1) You don't need a Masters in Finance for the vast majority of finance gigs. Finance is pretty simple.

2) Branding is most important. People do MBA's w/ Finance concentrations because they were probably liberal arts undergrads and need it. They do the MBA because it is still the most recognized business graduate degree and it is for career changers, people with experience, etc.

3) Rochester isn't ranked what you are saying. MSF or MBA. The school is good, has a lot of alumni on the street and has a good MSF and MBA program. There are plenty other better MBA schools.

I'd do the Simon MBA after you get your MSF if it was only a year extra, if you didn't have to take off of work for it, if it was required for your job and if you knew you weren't going to go to another, better MBA program. If your life doesn't fit all those narrow buckets, then I'd not do the MBA. Save that bullet just in case.

 
What are your thoughts on the MSF vs. another top MBA?

Let me be clear about this since the MSF programs seem to be gaining popularity. I'm directing this to any reader, not just you. There are two types of people I have seen getting MSFs:

1) Undergrads that couldn't find a job, so they decided to stick around in school.
2) Foreigners that are looking for an "in" in the United States and couldn't get in any other way.

I have yet to meet a strong MSF candidate. From what I have seen, schools are using it to generate revenue without diluting the quality of their MBA program. Do NOT get a MSF. It is nowhere near comparable to getting a MBA from a top school.

My program ranks 5th, my school's MBA is 12th for finance.

This is pure propaganda from your school. Rochester is not a top 25 program at any level. Maybe in MSF but, as I said, MSF programs are a joke.

Is it worth doing the MBA at Simon after?

Neither

Or a different top school?

Now you're on the right track.

Why do people give a damn about MBA's concentrating in finance when top MSF degree's are more detailed, focused, etc. in finance. Without factoring in work experience, it seems MBA's are still preferred though they are more broad.

Work experience makes all the difference. Plus MBA programs attract the best candidates, which attract the best employers, etc. It's a virtuous cycle which MSF programs are unlikely to break.

 
models_and_bottles:
What are your thoughts on the MSF vs. another top MBA?

Let me be clear about this since the MSF programs seem to be gaining popularity. I'm directing this to any reader, not just you. There are two types of people I have seen getting MSFs:

1) Undergrads that couldn't find a job, so they decided to stick around in school.
2) Foreigners that are looking for an "in" in the United States and couldn't get in any other way.

I have yet to meet a strong MSF candidate. From what I have seen, schools are using it to generate revenue without diluting the quality of their MBA program. Do NOT get a MSF. It is nowhere near comparable to getting a MBA from a top school.

My program ranks 5th, my school's MBA is 12th for finance.

This is pure propaganda from your school. Rochester is not a top 25 program at any level. Maybe in MSF but, as I said, MSF programs are a joke.

Is it worth doing the MBA at Simon after?

Neither

Or a different top school?

Now you're on the right track.

Why do people give a damn about MBA's concentrating in finance when top MSF degree's are more detailed, focused, etc. in finance. Without factoring in work experience, it seems MBA's are still preferred though they are more broad.

Work experience makes all the difference. Plus MBA programs attract the best candidates, which attract the best employers, etc. It's a virtuous cycle which MSF programs are unlikely to break.

Tell that to MIT, Princeton, Vanderbilt, Claremont, etc. The MSF is educationally superior to a MBA degree. The issue is people don't get MBA's for the education. They get it for the brand. At this point in time there are few MSF programs that are on par with an MBA from a brand perspective. You have MIT, Vanderbilt, USC. The rest would be T50 and above.

If you can get into a M7 MBA program and are looking to change careers the choice is obvious. If you are choosing between a MSF from UT Austin and a SMU MBA, the choice is not so close.

You're opinions are your own, but they are not anywhere near the truth. A few of your points have some truth, but they are drowned out by over generalizations and incorrect information.

 
Tell that to MIT, Princeton, Vanderbilt, Claremont, etc. The MSF is educationally superior to a MBA degree.

I'm sure physics, engineering, and philosophy degrees are educationally superior too. That doesn't translate into jobs in finance.

The issue is people don't get MBA's for the education. They get it for the brand.

Agreed.

At this point in time there are few MSF programs that are on par with an MBA from a brand perspective. You have MIT, Vanderbilt, USC.

No, just no.

Do these "top" MSF programs compare favorably to some MBA programs? Maybe. Does a MSF from any of those schools stack up to a MBA from Stanford, Wharton, Harvard, etc.? Not even close. Just look at the bios of leaders from any top IB, PE, or AM firm, or the compensation stats for a MSF vs. MBA from a top program. It's not even close.

 
models_and_bottles:
Tell that to MIT, Princeton, Vanderbilt, Claremont, etc. The MSF is educationally superior to a MBA degree.

I'm sure physics, engineering, and philosophy degrees are educationally superior too. That doesn't translate into jobs in finance.

The issue is people don't get MBA's for the education. They get it for the brand.

Agreed.

At this point in time there are few MSF programs that are on par with an MBA from a brand perspective. You have MIT, Vanderbilt, USC.

No, just no.

Do these "top" MSF programs compare favorably to some MBA programs? Maybe. Does a MSF from any of those schools stack up to a MBA from Stanford, Wharton, Harvard, etc.? Not even close. Just look at the bios of leaders from any top IB, PE, or AM firm, or the compensation stats for a MSF vs. MBA from a top program. It's not even close.

You are not comparing apples to apples. I said clearly that an M7 MBA is the ideal. An MIT MSF will stack up just fine with the schools you mention. Not every MSF only accepts students with no work experience. And looking at bios isn't a fair comparison because of the newness in the degree.

A MSF from USC is a much better choice than a MBA from UC San Diego. A MSF from UT Austin would be a better choice than a MBA from Tulane, Texas A&M, etc. The MSF currently leans towards a more junior student. This is changing as the degree matures. More PT MSF's (Rochester, BC) are coming online. More flex MSF (Georgetown) are coming online.

The compensation stats are off because more established students go into an MBA and more junior students go into an MSF. If you did the normal IB then PE work experience and went into MIT's program your outcome and salary would be similar as compared to their MBA program. At the end of the day it is the brand that matter (which you state yourself).

I reiterate. Many of your points have some validity, but you are not making a fair comparison and you are speaking in broad generalities.

Additionally, this topic isn't even relevant to the OP. The UR MSF is fine, but don't do the MBA. Aim higher. If you can't get into a better school then continue to work and think about a PT program. Lower ranked MBA's aren't worth the opportunity cost.

 

Think TNA might have addressed this already. The analysis in your last point is just wrong, 'models and bottles'. 'Look at the bios of leaders in any top firm'? Thats because most MSF programs are only 2-5 years old. Of course their alumni are not yet leaders. 'the compensation stats for MSF vs MBA'? MSF students are 21-25 years old. MBA students are what, 25-35 years old? Of course they are earning more.

USC MBA has an acceptance rate of 32%. USC MSF has an acceptance rate of GMAT and undergrad GPA average. And more importantly, we know MUCH, MUCH more about finance than them. And even more importantly, we are paying a third of their tuition and investing half the time.

 
You are not comparing apples to apples. I said clearly that an M7 MBA is the ideal. An MIT MSF will stack up just fine with the schools you mention.

Let's look at compensation surveys to see if that's true:

MIT MSF average salary (your "top MSF program"): $75k MIT Sloan undergrad average salary: $75k

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/career-development-office/employment-reports/mf… http://mitsloan.mit.edu/undergrad/careers/

Now lets look at some MBA salaries:

Stanford MBA average salary: $130k Wharton MBA average salary: $125k Harvard MBA average salary: $125k

Again, it is absolutely not true that a MSF is as good as a MBA. I don't doubt that the academics are harder, but in terms of career prospects it is not even close.

A MSF from USC is a much better choice than a MBA from UC San Diego.

Possibly. UCSD started its MBA program in 2005 and isn't even a top 50 MBA program. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. For what it's worth, I would never recommend getting a MBA from UCSD.

Please folks, do not buy into the hype that a MSF is in any way equivalent to a MBA. You are better off getting some work experience and applying to a top MBA program down the road.

 
models_and_bottles:
You are not comparing apples to apples. I said clearly that an M7 MBA is the ideal. An MIT MSF will stack up just fine with the schools you mention.

Let's look at compensation surveys to see if that's true:

MIT MSF average salary (your "top MSF program"): $75k
MIT Sloan undergrad average salary: $75k
http://mitsloan.mit.edu/career-development-office/...

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/undergrad/careers/

Now lets look at some MBA salaries:

Stanford MBA average salary: $130k
Wharton MBA average salary: $125k
Harvard MBA average salary: $125k

Again, it is absolutely not true that a MSF is as good as a MBA. I don't doubt that the academics are harder, but in terms of career prospects it is not even close.

A MSF from USC is a much better choice than a MBA from UC San Diego.

Possibly. UCSD started its MBA program in 2005 and isn't even a top 50 MBA program. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. For what it's worth, I would never recommend getting a MBA from UCSD.

Please folks, do not buy into the hype that a MSF is in any way equivalent to a MBA. You are better off getting some work experience and applying to a top MBA program down the road.

You continue to misconstrue the point.

You cannot compare the stats because different students go to each. Of course MBA salaries will be higher because as it currently stands people with more experience tend to go for MBA programs.

No one is buying into anything or selling anything. An MSF and a MBA is a different degree with different applicants, goals and objectives. But what you are saying is largely incorrect and plain wrong in many ways.

Additionally, the advice "you are better off with work experience and a TOP (lets caveat that because all MBA's are not equal) is poor advice.

1) Quality of work experience is a major factor in MBA applicants. 2) If someone goes to a smaller, unknown school, their odds of "blue chip" jobs and work experience is low.

Therefore, you cannot simply tell someone to just work and do a TOP MBA because without the right work experience you cannot get into those programs. Additionally, you don't always NEED an MBA. In the 6 years I've been involved in the MSF scene I can tell you I see the majority of graduates not going back for an MBA, but moving up the chain, whether it be staying in banking (or ER), going to PE and moving up that way, staying in F500 and progressing there as well. Some do go back and do an MBA as well, but it is the exception, not the rule.

The only difference in outcome for MSF graduates and MBA graduates is experience. Someone with IB and PE experience doing the MIT MSF would have the same placement as the MIT MBA. Same brand, focused degree, one year in time. The MSF wouldn't be good for non-finance people or career changers, but for someone who works in finance and intends on going back into finance, it would make no difference.

A perfect illustration of this is to look at Princeton's MiF program. More experienced students. Many with other graduate degrees. Outstanding placements in experienced roles (ie not analysts).

I will say this. Your advice holds true for M7 (or maybe T10) MBA programs (with exceptions made for MIT and Princeton). Outside this your advice falls apart. Someone with work experience would get an associate placement coming from the USC MSF program, UTAustin MSF Program, Vanderbilt, etc. These are all T25/30 B schools where MBA students place into finance roles. These are all MSF programs (with exception of USC - it is new) that place into IB. In fact, Vanderbilt's most recent MSF class placed into Goldman, Wells, BB&T, Stephens, Lazard, etc (off the top of my head). These were analyst roles, but this was a function of limited work experience. These placements are on par with the placements you would find in their MBA program or another MBA program of similar stature.

 

Those salary stats you post highlight that MSF graduates tend to be analysts and MBA's tend to be associates. This is because of experience before the program, not the programs quality. Just like a MBA graduate with no experience would most likely not be an associate somewhere, if you have the experience you will be an associate coming from an MSF. It happens often and in all the cases where it is warranted. In those cases salary is street and not discounted because you have a MSF vs an MBA.

 

Not trying to get into a pissing contest, but there seems to be confusion around the purpose of a MSF vs. MBA. I've posted this in another thread but thought it'd be appropriate to highlight here as well. They are intended to be two completely different degrees even if some of the learnings overlap. The MSF is a deep dive into learning financial principles and valuation techniques whereas the MBA is a general management degree oriented around learning how to appropriately apply those finance principles. In other words, the MSF equips analysts with the ability to crunch numbers whereas the MBA prepares future company leaders with the ability to understand and dissect the analysis prepared by the analysts. Hence, the MSF is appropriate for undergrads because it prepares you to do, whereas the MBA is suited for those would already have work experience to manage.

 

In order to test the theory we would need to control for work experience. We could look at compensation figures for MSF and MBA grads at age 30, when both have around 6-7 years of experience, and compare the numbers. I haven't done the analysis, but I can tell you that 1.5 years out of my MSF, most of my classmates have salaries either higher or comparable to the average salary of a recent WUSTL MBA grad.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

While I think the WUSTL MSF was a great investment, the MSF class that just graduated did not place well. No one placed in IB and alot of people placed in no name AM/research firms.

 
undefined:

While I think the WUSTL MSF was a great investment, the MSF class that just graduated did not place well. No one placed in IB and alot of people placed in no name AM/research firms.

this is bull. MSF is not called "master's for investment banking". also it's student's responsibility to prepare for recruting.

 

models_and_bottles totally derailed this conversation with nonsensical bs, not surprised coming from someone with that name. MSF students aren't competing with MBAs so the comparison is just pointless. Alot of MSF students go get MBAs, so again, the comparison is pointless. You are right about the two categories of students that get MSFs, but again, it makes sense for them if it leads to employment that could lead to a top MBA program. The calculus to getting an MSF or not is quite simple, do you want to work in finance? If you do and you have an unrelated degree/ went to a terrible school with no finance recruting get a top MSF, if not, then don't.

Array
 

Just wondering : for a career switcher with non-business background (STEM) is MBA really a better option than MSF? I mean competition for a top MBA is fierce. It's much easier to get into a top MSF than a top mba, and much cheaper too. And if a student really want to do an internship, just try to find a spring internship and finish your degree in the fall. That'll also give them more enough internship experience.

 
dhman06:

Just wondering : for a career switcher with non-business background (STEM) is MBA really a better option than MSF? I mean competition for a top MBA is fierce. It's much easier to get into a top MSF than a top mba, and much cheaper too. And if a student really want to do an internship, just try to find a spring internship and finish your degree in the fall. That'll also give them more enough internship experience.

December recruiting is considerably weaker... if MSF carries a better NPV than MBA, then by theory of demand, it should be more sought after - which should have driven up the requirements... Also it depends on what internships are in town - Could you do a NYC internship at MIT...

 
The compensation stats for MSF vs MBA'? MSF students are 21-25 years old. MBA students are what, 25-35 years old? Of course they are earning more.

Look at one of my posts above. As I showed, students from top MSF programs are getting paid the same, or less than, undergrads from top programs.

[quote] USC MBA has an acceptance rate of 32%. USC MSF has an acceptance rate of 5 years now and have worked with ZERO MSFs. I've worked with a lot of BBAs and MBAs. In my experience, most MSF students are foreigners that are looking for a Visa, or undergrads that couldn't get a "good" job so they took an extra year to get a MSF. That's not to say they aren't bright, especially the foreigners, but to claim that they are better than BBAs or comparable to MBAs is completely false.

 
undefined:
The compensation stats for MSF vs MBA'? MSF students are 21-25 years old. MBA students are what, 25-35 years old? Of course they are earning more.

Look at one of my posts above. As I showed, students from top MSF programs are getting paid the same, or less than, undergrads from top programs.

USC MBA has an acceptance rate of 32%. USC MSF has an acceptance rate of <4%. We have a higher GMAT and undergrad GPA average. And more importantly, we know MUCH, MUCH more about finance than them. And even more importantly, we are paying a third of their tuition and investing half the time.

Look, that's nice, but I've worked the industry for >5 years now and have worked with ZERO MSFs. I've worked with a lot of BBAs and MBAs. In my experience, most MSF students are foreigners that are looking for a Visa, or undergrads that couldn't get a "good" job so they took an extra year to get a MSF. That's not to say they aren't bright, especially the foreigners, but to claim that they are better than BBAs or comparable to MBAs is completely false.

I will agree wholeheartedly to this..... but depending on how much people gets feeded and how many MBAs exit the industry (retire, etc), the landscape may be a little more different later.

 

Man, this argument gets tiresome. In finance you are paid initially based on experience. Msf graduates tend to not have much experience. This is way a 1st year IBM analyst is paid the same whether they have a bba or an msf.

If you have IB or IB type experience and do an msf you can and do come in as an associate. You need the work experience.

And I know plenty of MSFs who work with other MSFs. Two senior people at my old firm had the degree. Acedotes are worthless though.

Give the degree time and you'll see it more often and competing with MBAs more frequently.

 

Financial Analyst. Essentially, I'm trying to figure out if it is worth pursuing a MSF to break into IB with what would be 2.5 years of WE by next fall or to wait it out and go the full-time MBA route. I'm really not enjoying my work at all and it's becoming more apparent to me that this is not something I'm interested in doing for the rest of my life. Hope that helps.

 

I personally think that outside of top 35 MBAs (P&Q ranking), it'd be better to do MIT MFin. It's almost like a MBA substitute in financial industry I hear.

What is columbia's MSF? MFE? Financial Economics? Good luck but Columbia seems to be creating all these degrees nowadays, selling their prestige for $$$.

 

Thanks for your input. I've considered both of those but they are both more pricey than either the other options. Although that alone wouldn't be enough to dissuade me, USF has a good alumni group in my current city (which I'm sure both the others do as well but not Penn State) and they have a good entrepreneurship program that tends to spit out good innovators.

Thoughts?

 

Cumque repellendus commodi ea quibusdam laborum praesentium. Facilis assumenda et recusandae doloribus nihil nostrum pariatur. Harum est fugit modi distinctio non excepturi et.

Et nihil blanditiis rerum. Vel temporibus laudantium accusamus explicabo.

Tenetur delectus voluptatem aspernatur in ea. Dignissimos doloremque architecto provident ut natus possimus. Pariatur vitae vitae est culpa. Voluptas amet occaecati exercitationem quia. Sint assumenda ut sit id.

Perferendis odit voluptatem et architecto nostrum quis. Asperiores qui ipsum iusto consequuntur mollitia.

 

Doloribus odit explicabo facere ut natus maxime. Aut laboriosam aut eveniet optio expedita. Placeat dolore sint et iure recusandae iure sequi.

Doloribus quidem et modi dolores. Delectus quo tempore molestiae. Optio consequatur sed sunt harum quaerat. Quasi ducimus ducimus omnis ab nobis autem repudiandae. Quo velit saepe labore porro ut sit. Fugit dignissimos eos rerum eum deserunt explicabo laborum voluptas.

Ratione temporibus eum quibusdam soluta. Rerum ut unde repellat enim dolorum ullam cumque. Est mollitia labore vel tempora. Delectus dolorum odio sit et qui.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

Consequatur recusandae accusamus id ut quis. Eius fugiat corporis hic repudiandae maiores rerum iusto. Et repellendus molestiae quo accusantium ex laboriosam optio. Aut nemo consequatur cupiditate sed voluptatem facere. Iusto magnam quis ad omnis dolores similique. Porro voluptatibus eveniet ullam at sequi nihil nemo.

Quam magni id similique recusandae deserunt. Voluptas reiciendis et dicta architecto in. Nesciunt id est aut animi sed. Soluta iste nostrum deserunt deleniti modi deserunt enim. Voluptas autem dolorum quidem aut. Omnis quasi quo dolore distinctio.

Quidem sit ea quis et sed sit est doloremque. Eum ea voluptatibus ullam at distinctio vel corrupti. Dolor porro assumenda omnis ex.

 

Voluptatem perspiciatis aspernatur inventore et soluta ab quia. Placeat est totam natus et sed quisquam.

Repellat ut ut vel aspernatur dolor ut. Accusamus sit fuga itaque vero nobis inventore tenetur. Repudiandae voluptatem repellendus nam dolor. Esse debitis impedit sit placeat. Provident sed non sint totam suscipit voluptate. Quaerat quo quia ut ratione praesentium aut iusto. Quam consectetur fugit suscipit nemo.

Facere consectetur error autem exercitationem laudantium officiis. Aut sapiente qui voluptatibus nihil aut repudiandae. Excepturi aut ad aut culpa qui.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”