Baruch students beat targets in trading competition at MIT
Saw an article on WSJ earlier today, basically highlights how kids from Baruch's program won over kids from targets (Harvard, Wharton, etc) in a trading competition at MIT. Specific article talks about their master's program, but definitely brings attention to the school as a whole.
Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/sorry-harvard-and-ya…
For all you non-NYC guys, Baruch (i would say) is a semi-target for many top firms in S&T/IB/etc coming out of undergrad, as Baruch kids do relatively well on the street having had their actual schooling in NYC and have 75% of their student body enrolled in the business school. A huge amount of that is all finance, and it's a city school, so tuition is substantially lower, at 6k a year in-state, vs 40k+. I guess it's a big comparison vs brand name/non elitist school, but overall, I'm curious what everyone else thinks.
What're your thoughts monkeys? Would you consider Baruch an undergrad target, or becoming a target in NYC for the traditional investment banking, sales & trading, and so on roles? Would you say this is a surprise, or to be expected? What do you think about Baruch, the relative"underdog," overtaking all these targets in this competition, and the general comparison between Baruch and targets overall?
I don't see it. Generally considered a low quality pool. Takes a backseat to even Fordham. On par with Pace.
Their MFE, Master of Fin Engineering, program is top notch, that is what this article is about. Doesn't really make the rest of the school a big front office target, it isn't. These are masters students already with advanced degrees in math, and usually chinese or russian fluency. The ugrad education is pretty good, but placement for ugrad is not good.
This. They've been ranked #1 MFE by QuantNet for the past couple years. Very heavy on computational investing with C + Boost Library. A great deal if you're trying to break into quant roles.
The very top percentile of any random school will be similar to the top percentile of a target school/ivy. The reason for this is that many students didn't get their academics together until they entered college. The targets don't have a monopoly on quality students. It's common for really smart kids to fuck around in high school and as a result not get into (or even apply to) schools they could have got into.
A lot of factors can come into play as well.. You can be absolutely brilliant but also not be able to afford to attend target schools or deal with any loans. It's not really a matter of fucking around as much as not wanting debt for undergrad.
This is true, a girl I knew in high school was accepted to Brown, but couldn't afford the costs. Ended up going to a decent state school in CA.
Many people (and firms, unfortunately) fail to understand this. The real difference between an Ivy League and a state school is the middle 90%. The top 5% at Arizona State is just as good as the top 5% at an Ivy. I've met some incredibly smart people who didn't go to a "prestigious" school due to financial circumstances, specific local opportunities, family/health situations, etc.
Trading success has little correlation with education. Just look at John Paulson, fund -18% for FY16. Meanwhile my grandma did something like +15%.
Is your grandma taking external capital? Need to park my $$ somewhere
interested too - can i ping you for your grandma's contact info?
she asked me the best way to invest in "those phones all you kids can't stop using." i told her just put it in QQQ. hence +15%. handily beating most billionaire hedge funds, as well as her own grandson.
I just feel like 'we', as in the WSO community, really understate the value of a 'target' school education. People here are telling kids not to go to target schools as a go-around, but it doesn't make it right. If you are in HS, apply and try your best to get into a target. If you're starting in your FS year or even SO at a non-target, try your best to transfer if you have th wherewithal and know you are very career-oriented, because it's a 'fuck friends' career move. Which is good in the business. Don't just sit in a non-target because it's possible, all-in, to break in via a non-target. Still, I've seen kids burn out, get laid off first and other shitty outcomes for non-target alum from my school who were fortunate to break in.
We're not arguing with the value of a target school. However I think that for most people the "value" isn't found in superior course content (which is heavily standardized, and a number of prestigious universities offer the content for free online) but because of superior networking opportunities, access to OCR recruiting, and branding.......none of which matter in any kind of trading or investing competition which instead will hinge on some combination of market knowledge, analytical aptitude, computer skills (as pointed out above), and luck.
As someone who has competed in one of these competitions as a student, success completely has to do with the level of familiarity with the software used, whether or not their school offers a class using the software, the commitment of the professor sponsoring the students, etc. That's why a lot of "lesser brand" Canadian schools place in the top of Rotman. I agree Baruch has a great program, but extrapolating rankings off of these results is going overboard. Just some writer at wsj looking for a clickbait title.
When looking at it on an economic scale, CUNY as a whole is the most economic choice for any NYC resident! (barring a perfect SAT score and free rides knocking at your door)
I get the whole ranking thing... but on a logical level is it really worth it to put yourself in $200,000+ high interest debt just to go to a "higher ranked" school that isn't an IVY/ in the top 10? And even if the job prospects are better, is the job really worth it when a good chunk of your pay check is going to the student loan? Wouldn't it make more sense graduating debt free from Baruch and getting a slightly lower paying job but seeing all of your check after taxes?
Either way its good to see an underdog stick it to the snobby target schools.
100% worth it if you're going into finance or any serious business role and if you're at all ambitious. The risk of career failure is much lower, the amount of second and third chances you get goes up and many more doors will be available throughout your career.
The network value can't be understated. As someone who went to a cheap local school for UG and is finishing Booth for grad school, I've lived in both worlds, and having alumni in high places works magic. As you hit mid to late career, even if you're successful, many more of your peers at a top school will also be successful vs at a local school. This means that many more doors are available to you in late career as well, a huge boon when you're seeking senior level management roles.
$200K in debt would not be worth it for ugrad, though I think that's a pretty high # (your parents would have to be rich enough to get 0 finaid but then not be willing to pay for anything). I would say $50K
Familiarity with software trumps all.
University is irrelevant. Stupid metric competition.
Qui eos quae iure. Quasi consectetur ea enim temporibus blanditiis sint quo. Nihil sed architecto culpa est commodi et enim nulla. Quis aperiam aut architecto vel consequatur. Aut aut id modi ut et ut reiciendis. Voluptas consectetur accusantium provident fugiat culpa.
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...