Long story short, I didn't get the exact job I wanted out of college (non-target private school in northeast) and am working on the product rather than securities side in fixed income. I want to transition to a capital markets or trading, or research role where I can interact more with the actual securities that make up FI portfolios. I only have a little more than a year of experience - should I wait 2 or 3 more years to get an MBA or should I take the GRE/GMAT now and get into a good MSF program? For reference I had a 3.9 GPA in undergrad and good extracurriculars (finance director of club with 15k+ budget) and good volunteer work (sponsor scholarship, 100+ hours in organized volunteer group).
Trending Content
Career Resources
MSF should be avoided if you can get an MBA. MSFs are really for those that desperately need their foot in the door. It's great for international's and those that graduated from non-targets (particularly those that graduated during the crisis).
If you're already in the industry but not quite happy, MBA is the proper route. Work hard for promotions; increase your salary to the extent possible and kill the GMAT.
This is highly qualified advice. If you can get a top MBA (1-20). Otherwise you aren’t breaking into any of these more lucrative careers.
The OP obviously is on track and has the raw material for getting into a good MBA program. Someone with a so-so job and a 3.2 from a school no one has heard of can benefit from an MSF. And many people who get their MSF and go into a FO type role never need to or want to go back for their MBA.
I disagree. There are MBAs outside of the top 50 that have better placements than 99% of the MSFs out there. There are a few, select MSFs that perform but even they have relatively low, median starting salaries (MBB/BB is almost unheard of and you can forget about the buyside (unless you're talking about CRE).
By contrast, MBAs at UCONN, University of Delaware, Rochester, Penn, Baruch, etc., have 90% employment rates with median starting salaries at 110K+. IB associate placements are not unheard of. Regional placements are very strong.
So the MBA is the premier post-graduate business degree in the US by far. If you can bypass the MSF you should. The MSF is costly and there are little-to-no effective recruiting channels. The MSF is really for those desperately trying to break in.
If you have 4-5 years of work exp, get a 650 on the GMAT, MBAs from Notre Dame, Penn State, Rochester, etc., will do far more for you than MSFs at Nova, Vandy or Wash U.
If you have 4 - 5 years of work exp, get a 600 on the GMAT, MBAs from UConn, University of Delaware, Baruch, etc., will do far more for you than MSFs at Nova, Johns Hopkins, Syracuse, etc.
If you get a 700+ and can get into top 20, then it's not even close.
You’re comparing MBA starting salaries with MSF starting salaries and you complain about my lack of hard percentages? Lol.
I’d sure hope that someone who is going into the UDel MBA with 3-5 or more years experience would have a 25k premium to the average MSFer with 1 year or less experience.
As for your difficulties going from MSF to MBA, that’s your own. Not everyone has high debt and the MBA isn’t necessary for everyone.
As for percentage of placements defining “good”, I think if 50% or more of a class places into IB, ER, rotational programs, Big 4 TAS, etc then that is pretty good. Considering most students who attend these programs come from schools that don’t have these options.
The MSF provides an education, a new alumni brand, recruiting and a graduate degree. What someone does with it is their business. You seem to be unhappy with your choice and that is fine. But telling someon who has no path towards a decent MBA (being defined as giving someone the ability to secure one of the higher sought after career paths) to just do an MBA is irresponsible.
And please, how many people without banking experience are getting IB Associate roles from UDel or a comparative program? At double the cost of an MSF (without factoring in discounts).
Also, this ignores the PT MSF option. Someone working at say State Street in Boston would be benefitted doing the PT BC MSF vs say a MBA from Northeastern.
Like I said, you opinion isn’t completely wrong, just too extreme (in my opinion).
And as far as alumni network, I just helped an MSF get an interview. Vanderbilt uses their network extremely well. The UF MSF does the same with both their UG and MSF students. You went to the school. You have a degree from the school. Networking with alumni of the school is part and parcel.
Your comments are italicized
You're comparing MBA starting salaries with MSF starting salaries and you complain about my lack of hard percentages? Lol. I'd sure hope that someone who is going into the UDel MBA with 3-5 or more years experience would have a 25k premium to the average MSFer with 1 year or less experience.
This is my point. The MSF doesn't really treat you different. Everyone recruits for the same shit. For example, Capital One recruits at Wash U for its business analyst program. The MSFs compete with the undergrads no matter age/experience. The MBAs apply for the MBA roles. We had a 27 year old army captain that led 100+ people in combat in my year. He went to a bank as an analyst (graduated summa cum laude undergrad).
As for your difficulties going from MSF to MBA, that's your own. Not everyone has high debt and the MBA isn't necessary for everyone.
It's not just me that would have a hard time paying for an MBA after an MSF...
As for percentage of placements defining "good", I think if 50% or more of a class places into IB, ER, rotational programs, Big 4 TAS, etc then that is pretty good. Considering most students who attend these programs come from schools that don't have these options.
This is a pretty wide variation of roles. ER and rotational programs are not the same thing. IB and big 4 TAS roles are not the same. Stop conflating things that are very different.
And please, how many people without banking experience are getting IB Associate roles from UDel or a comparative program? At double the cost of an MSF (without factoring in discounts).
It's not double the cost. You have no idea what Udel costs, especially if you get a 680 GMAT in a program that averages 580. The question is, how many IB Associate roles does a comparable MBA (requiring 660+ gmat) produce? How many does Rochester, Georgetown, UT Austin produce compared to MSFs? A lot more is the answer.
You have zero clue what it cost. You’re assuming scholarships and assuming none for a comparative MSF. You’re also ignoring opportunity cost of 1 vs 2 years.
And mixing Georgetown in a conversation with UDel is disengenious. Grown, Emory, ND, etc are all regional exceptions. Depending on ranking they come in T25 or 30. They have powerful brands and alumni network.
And ND and Gtown both have one year, PT MSF programs, allowing people with years of experience to get a graduate degree in half the time. Which many choose to do.
UG is not relevant to the conversation. MSF students are treated as UGs for Jobs because they lack experience. The kid attending one of these MSF programs is doing so because they couldn’t get a satisfactory role upon graduation.
A fair comparison would be to look at salaries from a WUSTL graduate when they reach the same experience and age as a UDel graduate. I’d be willing to be the person who does the FT UDel MBA program has a lower UG starting salary as the WUSTL MSF.
And I have no doubt others cannot afford the MBA. But you cannot crucify my for lack of data and then use an opinion as fact.
Correct. ER is different than a rotational program. Where they are the same is they are both top roles within their space. A rotational candidate is afforded different opportunities and exposure than someone hired to be an analyst in Corp finance right out of school. And TAS is a great springboard for IB and other FO careers. Not every UG school places for TAS, whereas many MSF programs do.
If a kid has 6 months experience from a decent school and just wants to move up within say corporate finance, taking time off to go to say Santa Clara’s MSF full time makes no sense. Someone with 3 or 4 years should obviously consider an MBA, but it’s not automatically the best thing to do.
My issue is with your absolutism in your advice. I try and be more nuanced as I’ve seen many people over the years do things you’d be definitively against and have great outcomes because of their specific and unique career goals.
I just told you that a 27 year old army commander with IB internship experience recruited with undergrads for an analyst role coming out of an MSF. If that individual went to an MBA, he would have recruited for associate level position. Do you understand?
Honestly I don't know what this would look like, but I'm fairly confident that a Rochester, Georgetown, UT Austin MBA (more appropriate comparison for WUSTL) would fair better.
Rotational programs are like the worst gigs coming out of MBA programs. TAS is "not a great springboard" of IB. MBAs don't give a fuck about TAS. The worst students from Pace, Temple, etc. type of MBAs make it to TAS. I know because I've worked with them in TAS.
This is where we have a disconnect. Someone with 3 - 4 years of experience should automatically go into an MBA. All other things equal, the employment outcomes for a comparable MBA significantly outperform the MSF. Once again, I have to refer to my initial point:
If you have 4-5 years of work exp, get a 650 on the GMAT, MBAs from Notre Dame, Penn State, Rochester, etc., will do far more for you than MSFs at Nova, Vandy or Wash U.
If you have 4 - 5 years of work exp, get a 600 on the GMAT, MBAs from UConn, University of Delaware, Baruch, etc., will do far more for you than MSFs at Nova, Johns Hopkins, Syracuse, etc.
If you get a 700+ and can get into top 20, then it's not even close.
Okay well agree to disagree.