https://thefinancialengineer.net/msf-rankings/
Hi Guys, so Vanderbilt's website has a link to an official ranking of U.S. MSF programs. The methodology used is:
MSF Rankings Components
30% Mean GMAT Scores
25% Mean Starting Salary and Bonus
15% Mean Undergraduate GPA
15% Acceptance Rate
10% Full Time Graduates Employed at Graduation
5% Full Time Graduates Employed 3 Months after Graduation
Overall Score
A score for each program is the weighted average of each of the components respective score, where the weights sum to 100%. The final scores are normalized and are not rounded.
Here's the top 10:
1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
2 Princeton University
3 Vanderbilt University
4 Washington University in St. Louis
5 University of Rochester
6 University of Southern California
7 University of Texas - Austin
8 University of Florida
9 Johns Hopkins University
10 Arizona State University
Overall the ranking makes sense to me and the output seems to be consistent with general perception. The only glaring abnormality is the ranking of CMC's program, which is generally considered to be among the best in the country. It's somehow ranked 71st.
What do you guys think?
Their ranking is bad and they did it to only gain site clicks.
USC has no placements yet. U Forida isn't open to outside students so you can't really include them. ASU is entirely international and has no placements. Same with Rochester. Princeton isn't a true MSF. More hybrid MSF.
I am going to do a ranking shortly. Some of their methodology is ok, but they need to have a requirement that a program be around for at least a year. Also need to factor placements and program diversity into the equation.
and of course ANT is the first one to comment but I largely agree- you gotta be kidding with asu
look forward to seeing your ranking
Pretty sure the comprehensive US MSF ranking on this site is still the best ranking out there
Methodology seems odd - not in a "these things aren't done like this!" way but in a common sense way. Mean GMAT more important than Starting Salary? Mean undergraduate GPA and acceptance rate more important than employment? C'mon... academic prestige means dogshit if you're unemployed or broke.
So I tend to agree with this weighting for a few reasons. First, different programs will have varying starting salaries, not simply because of differences in quality of the program but also because of variations in regional placements. 70k in NY is not equal to 70k in St. Louis or in Georgia. That said, I do place a lot of weight on starting salary and this ranking does as well. The employed at or 3 months after graduation does deserve additional weight but you can see how programs can pad their ranking by placing large portions of their grads into less desirable/competitive FT positions.
Also, I do think that there's a link between program selectivity and its quality. Hard for a low quality program to be selective. That said, I don't understand CMC's ranking. It's extremely competitive in all of these fields.
EDIT: The GMAT accounts for these regional differences, though I agree with ANT that there needs to be a factor that considers class composition (% of internationals).
11 University of Notre Dame Master of Finance 12 Villanova University Master of Finance 13 University of Texas - Dallas Master of Finance 14 Brandeis University Master of Finance 15 University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign Master of Finance 16 Ohio State University Master of Finance 17 University of California - San Diego Master of Finance 18 Texas A&M University Master of Finance 19 Boston College Master of Finance 20 Temple University Master of Investment Management
You need to expand the list to see all the faults.
I love ND, but it is a MS in Management. Their MSF is part time and has no placements right now. UT Dallas, c'mon. Brandeis is a fine school, but again, c'mon. UCSD is a new program, no placements. Temple isn't a MSF.
For a ranking to be good it should help students make a choice on which program is worth attending. This means which program will provide the best education and a job afterwards. Many of these programs rank high because of GMAT and GPA stats, which are high if you accept only international students. Whenever I talk to foreign students the last thing they want is to be in a program with nothing but international students.
I agree, the ranking on this site, done by tiers, is a much better ranking than this. This is the equivalent to the FT ranking when it comes to accuracy. More weight needs to be placed on placements, class diversity, etc. And a program needs to be around for at least a year or two as well.
I'm not a fan of the fact that GPA and GMAT make up 45%. Why should I care about either of those factors if there placement is sub-par?
BECAUSE PRESTIGE!
(But I agree with you.)
... does it really matter after that?
p.s. excluded UF for obvious reasons
I think this is a very fair list for people agnostic of location. I'd rearrange it some depending on Texas, California, chicago or nyc location preference, but not by much.
When I do my ranking ing I'm going to have an overall and a regional specific one.
Placement should be top priority and should take into account quality of placement (or if the students obtained their first choice jobs) if possible. Not sure how reasonable this is to determine. For example, maybe somebody wanted to do corpfin at eBay and everybody who wanted mm IB got in, etc. can't wait to see the official TNA list though.
I agree with the placemen's comment. I plan on factoring them in, but I'll shy away from making subjective quality assessments. On my site I plan on posting a 2-3 article lead in on rationale and how to use the list before I post it. Weighting placements to much doesn't factor in the reality that not everyone wants IB.
Personally, programs with placement stats indicate to me that they are focused on getting students jobs and not just providing a masters and nothing else.
Same thing with providing a weight towards evenly balanced programs. Internationals struggle to find jobs and if a program is over weight foreign Students it will impact their placement stats.
I've done some early mock ups and the list is close to what you seen before. Reality is there are only about a dozen schools that place students in the msf space. maybe 20 if you include mms. Small universe for sure.
Slightly off topic...but I was just reading about UT's and MIT's placements (the only two that I checked out of the above listed schools actually)...and it seems like a lot more people than you would expect are placing into consulting (MBB included). Anyone have any input on whether these programs might be an option for someone from a non-target school with virtually no shot of landing MBB out of undergrad? High GPA and test scores if that helps...
a. Princeton should be excluded and be thrown into MFE ranking.
b, I'd pick Notre Dame over many brands for its solid Rep. Actually I'd rank MSF with a proportion of scoring over its MBA program (except CMC). If the MSF program doesnt have a nicely ranked MBA program (or a Target School Status) accompanying, it'd be less useful.
c. I thought Boston College MSF has some more work experiences than typical MSF.... is it true?
Why is CMC ranked so low on this website? Based on the methodology, shouldn't it be pretty competitive in this ranking?
probably for not having an MBA program by the side-- I believe CMC's has a Drucker School of Management, but I don't think it has MBA
Villanova doesn't belong in top 10. They had dismal placements.
hate to agree with this troller here, but I was wondering how BC MSF is lesser than Nova MSF?
@TNA'
I didn't do the ranking so I don't know. BC just recently started their FT cohort which might have hurt them. Also, not every school is going to send out a lot of info to a no name site (non businessweek, us news ,etc).
Also, Nova doesnt have dysmal placements. hyperbole like that is rediculous. IMO, nova and BC are pretty on part with each other in regards to their msf offerings.
Hasn't Georgetown just started a Masters in Finance? Is there a reason why they haven't ranked?
Repellat aliquid doloribus quis cumque. Beatae aut et voluptates deserunt sed.
Sint molestiae omnis ea voluptas facilis placeat voluptas. Suscipit eius officiis quam qui rerum mollitia quis.
Et quo quae dolorum non eos perferendis. Dolore qui ratione aut dolorem dolorum cupiditate repellat.
Eos sit id maiores molestias quis. Non ut non error ut tenetur maxime repellat reiciendis. Et architecto cumque aut sed illo ut aut. Ullam aut enim nam aut adipisci tempore aspernatur. Repudiandae perferendis laudantium quae ipsum nesciunt et ad.
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...
Rerum amet cupiditate dolorum officia. Est distinctio ab laboriosam voluptas placeat. Consequuntur aspernatur aliquid est et dignissimos nostrum.