Princeton MFin plus Booth MBA
Would it be considered at all useful to pursue both a MFin from Princeton and a Booth MBA, with a concentration in Analytic Finance. Let's say if you're getting set to graduate from Booth and you begin to realize that most of the elite quantitative jobs on Wall Street don't really recruit MBAs, even from Booth. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks.
You'd be very "short-sighted" if you got both.
If you can't land a job out of Booth in this market I don't think you'll have any better luck landing a job out of Princeton 2 years from now.
Could you explain what you mean by short-sighted? Just in terms of doing them back-to-back? And let's say you do have job opportunities now, but they're just not top tier buy-side firms, which looking at Princeton's placement report they likely would be if you graduated from there.
Thanks for the feedback guys.
I think you get the fact right but cause wrong. Princeton MFin graduates can get into top buy side quant role because those roles are most likely junior/entry level role (i believe most MFin students don't have or have little full-time working experience). Assuming you have 4-5 years working experiences (average for booth MBA students), and then 4 years in MBA/MFin, there is no way a quant fund would hire a 30+ non-PhD students to entry level quant role.
If you really want to do quant role at ur stage, PhD is only choice.
I think the problem here is that you have to have spent at least half of your time since age 18 working on quantitative stuff (EG a STEM undergrad, dev roles, an MFE, etc)
In some ways the ideal candidate for our team right now is someone who spent two years covering a specific industry in ER or IBD, has a STEM undergrad, and got an MFE.
I agree that the two years spent on an MBA hurts for a quant role. I don't agree that Princeton only places people into entry-level roles or that a PhD is necessary. I would instead push OP to get a JoF or JFE publication. Industry experience of any sort and a big three journal publication (2nd or 3rd name is OK) is really all OP needs to be a compelling candidate. No industry experience required.
OP, you could talk to one of your former booth profs and see if they are working on any interesting research problems and need some free help.
I studied science/engineering in one of the best STEM schools in US and currently work at a fundamental hedge fund as a semi-quant (doing asset allocation/optimization/factor model/risk etc). I can't say I'm the expert in this field since I never work in pure quant house but I do know a lot of quant in both sell side and buy side.
To clarify my point, I didn't mean Princeton MFin only place people in junior roles. I meant many MFin students don't have substantial working experiences in quant finance so they can only get into junior role (junior role here means associate level in bank or junior quant pm/quant in hf). This could be incomprehensive since I know mostly Asians in top MFE programs and they may be younger than US peers.
The reason I recommend OP to get PhD instead of MFin is that age is against him in this field. I believe there are two sorts of quant roles: ones that really require PhD level knowledge and ones that don't. Most positions that hire MFE grads (no prior PhD) are the latter ones and tend to hire fresh graduate in their 20ish instead of 30ish years old veteran with MBA. A lot of those quant roles are actually quant developers who also model a little bit. For PhD level hire it usually more depends on the actual research ability and age is less a concern. I really don't see OP compete with 20ish for a junior quant role after MFin.
Again, I don't think pure quant is the right career to go based on OP's background. He better do something more relevant to MBA like PM in IT industry or fundamental investment. If OP really like investment but has 0 interest in fundemental, I believe Booth places well in some "semi quant" investment strategies like smart beta (DFA/AQR) thanks to fame of Fama/EMH.
I totally see what you're saying. I'd definitely be one of the older members of the class (between 29-30). However, the application FAQ does talk about how previous work experience in the financial industry is looked at as a plus for the program. Would employers look at the fact that I have work experience in prop trading plus a CFA and MBA from Booth as a negative thing? I can see how some quant firms looking to hire someone totally fresh and looking to train him with the firm's philosophy on the markets would feel this way, but would this be pervasive across all firms? I'd have to think some firms would look at more experience as a positive. But then again what do I know.
Having a hard time accepting that I already might be too old for some graduate programs before my 30th birthday :(
Thanks again for the feedback.
1.) About half of Princeton MFins have at least 2-3 years of finance work experience and many of these guys land jobs that would not hire them if they were fresh out of undergrad/grad school. I could not have landed my current job if I hadn't spent a few years on the sellside. Not sure where the entry level job comment came from. For some of us, an MFE (what Princeton MFin is in at least some sense) is the advanced STEM degree that qualifies people for an entry level quant role; for others it serves as a sort of MBA analogue for quants.
2.) I have a lot of respect for Booth, but if you went there thinking any MBA would help you land quant jobs, you are probably a little less intelligent than their average graduate (who is very smart BTW). I have not met a quant with an MBA but there is always a first for everything.
3.) Princeton admits a lot of people in their 30s to the MFin program- but I still can't wrap my head around why you need it or why this makes sense for your career or why if Booth was a $160K mistake, Princeton won't be a $130K mistake.
In terms of my background, I am a CS undergrad at a top-5 program, spent 2 years as a software developer, and 4 years in proprietary trading prior to Booth. Agreed that it was naive to think that the Booth MBA would lead to quant jobs. That being said, I'm trying to optimize my career plans from here on. Doesn't Princeton's MFin program allow you to complete in one year rather than two depending on what your background and coursework looks like? So it'd really only be a $65k "mistake" rather than $130k ;).
Getting a JoF or JFE publication seems highly improbable for me at this point. I can see why having an MBA in addition to the MFin might be looked upon as career confusion from a recruiter, or even Princeton's admissions team for that matter. I appreciate the feedback.
I actually missed the last couple paragraphs of your last post, Illini. Are you suggesting applying to the program now? I'm not sure if you meant a compelling candidate to Princeton's MFin program or a complelling candidate for quant jobs. Just wanted to clarify. Talking to Booth professors about research sounds like a good idea though. Thanks.
If you apply at Princeton you'll get an interview. But something like half of our applicants have FO experience and there will be a lot of questions about the MBA, what you want to do, and if you're a good fit for the class. We admit a lot of people in their 30s, but they have a clearly defined path through STEM or maybe finance and haven't taken any detours.
If you wind up pursuing a career as a quant, the MBA was a $160K two-year mistake. And you're not in a good state for making $100K+ 2 year decisions right now. I'd focus on reaching out to a prof you know and trying to publish something- even in the IEEE or JACM. I would not assume you needed an MFE just yet and I want you to do some more thinking about this first.
Have you tried landing a job as a project manager at a tech firm? I honestly don't think career outcomes there would be much different than in a QR role. Booth has a 90% placement rate; why is it that you want to be a quant?
I feel exactly the same as the OP. I'm a 2nd year at a top b-school (Wharton/Columbia/Booth/Sloan), and I'm dismayed and frustrated by the lack of Asset Management recruiting. Yes, the long-only mutual funds do recruit for equity research, but as someone interested in asset allocation, portfolio construction, and multi-asset strategies, there's virtually nothing for MBAs. I am thus forced to recruit for dreadful banking. If my math background were stronger, I would've applied to top 5 mfe programs and never have done an MBA.
You make it sound like a punishment.
You clearly have no idea how brutal post-mba banking is. The hours are awful, and if you live in overhyped NYC, you barely save money and have to live in squalor. Also, no exit opps for post-mba bankers. You're pretty much stuck in banking.
That's because MBA's don't lean real, useful tangible skills. You didn't know this before applying?
I remember you are at Wharton? I believe Booth students have better chances to "asset allocation, portfolio construction, and multi-asset strategies" since they have a lot of advance finance courses (some PhD level finance courses are open to MBA students).
http://www.chicagobooth.edu/programs/full-time/academics/curriculum/ana…
"Theory of Financial Decisions 1 - This PhD-level course is concerned with models for portfolio decisions by investors and the pricing of securities in capital markets. It is meant to be difficult, but accessible to the motivated MBA student."
Yeah MBAvsMFin has to take a traditional buyside gig. Wow that sucks for him.
The level of salt in this thread is nuts. I think an MBA can be a rehash or generally useful largely dependent on the person and where they are coming from, both educationally and professionally. An MBA is only a joke if you make it that way. I know plenty of M7 people who do jack shit and plenty who take challenging classes and actually learn something. IMO, if you are going into an MBA with the goal to do nothing and party you are wasting a lot of money.
As for the OP's question, if you aren't targeting quant jobs, the prestige of Princeton isn't really that much more than Booth. Both will have top notch alumni, both will have top classmates and both will have top firms recruiting.
Dolor mollitia quod quam odit. Ut sit ut fuga repudiandae illum ipsam. Deleniti illo tempore quia ipsa. Rem autem minus ea reiciendis quas vitae. Possimus temporibus provident accusantium et omnis saepe. Et dolor facilis autem enim et facere ut. Aliquid praesentium aperiam rerum autem nostrum neque molestiae omnis.
Vel expedita sunt et ducimus consequatur nobis. Aliquid sit et officia id. Totam eaque nesciunt iusto temporibus. Qui deserunt ut dolorum non molestiae.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Dolores amet unde doloribus odit quo. Ut est cum doloribus ab. In id eum eligendi et non minus sed non.
Sed et et dolor dolorum beatae. Voluptatum qui non ab. Quia et est aut beatae ea iste. Omnis sapiente odit ipsa quos. Occaecati exercitationem dolorem est explicabo ab itaque et.
Sapiente optio nam dignissimos. Ea reiciendis sunt quaerat culpa officia ut similique. Facilis et officia harum. Voluptatem est blanditiis sunt labore architecto.