<p>No point arguing over whether finance is interesting or not. Obviously its subjective. Personally I find it extremely interesting.</p>
<p>
That’s fine - like I said, this is outside my personal experience, which is primarily limited to the wandering careers of my fellow EE’s. How do you feel your ChemE degree prepared you for finance? I would note that the individuals to whom I was referring (and I believe that were being referenced by the OP) are those who entered finance directly, without the benefit of the MBA. I would presume that any MBA graduate (from a decent school) would be able to select coursework that would adequately prepare them for a career in finance.</p>
<p>By the way - congratulations on the MBA. Those are tough schools to get into. I have a non-engineer associate who is in his second year of Harvard’s MBA program right now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As far as whether they want to hire people who actually know something about finance, well, I could provide an answer, but I think Michael Lewis (author of Liar’s Poker about his experiences as a former Wall Street bond trader) said it best: </p>
<p>*To this day, the willingness of a Wall Street investment bank to pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars to dispense investment advice to grownups remains a mystery to me. I was 24 years old, with no experience of, or particular interest in, guessing which stocks and bonds would rise and which would fall. The essential function of Wall Street is to allocate capitalto decide who should get it and who should not. Believe me when I tell you that I hadnt the first clue.</p>
<p>Id never taken an accounting course, never run a business, never even had savings of my own to manage. I stumbled into a job at Salomon Brothers in 1985 and stumbled out much richer three years later, and even though I wrote a book about the experience, the whole thing still strikes me as preposterouswhich is one of the reasons the money was so easy to walk away from. I figured the situation was unsustainable. Sooner rather than later, someone was going to identify me, along with a lot of people more or less like me, as a fraud. Sooner rather than later, there would come a Great Reckoning when Wall Street would wake up and hundreds if not thousands of young people like me, who had no business making huge bets with other peoples money, would be expelled from finance. *</p>
<p>Read more: [The</a> End Of Wall Streets Boom - News Markets - Portfolio.com](<a href=“http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom/#ixzz17CuB20Ug]The”>http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom/#ixzz17CuB20Ug) </p>
<p>But, as Lewis said in his books, the finance industry’s hiring practices have not changed. It’s one of the business world’s great modern-day mysteries as to why/how the finance industry can continue to pay giant packages to new hirees right out of college who have never studied finance or accounting, have never run their own portfolios, heck, who may not have even ever had to balance their own checkbook. Believe me, those Harvard liberal arts students I know who took finance jobs knew nothing about the industry. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is more like it, although, frankly, the GPA’s don’t even really need to be all that high (although it obviously shouldn’t be terrible). </p>
<p>What seems to matter greatly is the marketability of the university’s brand name, possibly because the banks may use the brand to attract clientele. Saying that your analyst team consists of a bunch of Ivy graduates seems to be more impressive from a marketing standpoint - even if they were all former English majors - than saying that they were all finance majors from a 4th tier school. As one guy I know who used to work in the banking industry in the Arab world said, it’s deeply intimidating, especially to potential foreign clients, when your team consists entirely of graduates from Harvard (or other heavily branded school). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but that doesn’t quite explain why the banks are also likely to hire graduates from high-prestige schools who majored in creampuff subjects. Let’s face it: a graduate from even a 4th tier engineering school probably worked harder than a film studies student at an Ivy, yet the latter has a far higher chance of landing a finance job (for the simple reason that the former’s chances are essentially zero).</p>
<p>sakky…excellent post. I happen to think that engineers are uniquely wired to do well in finance. Indeed, they do study “process” and and they have considerable skill, generally, with statistical analysis and math…not to mention computer modeling and spreadsheets. My father was an EE who has incredible aptitude in Finance. He clearly should have pursued the field formally. Engineers are also generally good students. who can learn anything. I work in a consulting engineering firm with guys and gals who go from project to project…often without any specific experience with a particular piece of equipment or software…just familiarity with other things with similar functionality. They learn the theory in school and they apply it as the situation fits. They also tend to be honest and tight with a buck. Also not a bad thing to have in a person managing money.</p>
<p>I agree that engineers may be uniquely suited for finance. But it’s not our decision. That’s up to the hiring committees of the financial firms and they have decided, by virtue of their ever-loving wisdom, that they would rather hire an art history student than an engineering student at certainly a 4th tier school, and not even a 2nd tier school, as long as that art history student went to Harvard or other elite school.</p>
<p>One thing I find unfitting is this: how could a finance firm or bank hire, lets say, an MA student in the humanities at Columbia, over a 4th tier engineering student who is very familiar with many engineering/math principles? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So by this token, an MA student in the humanities at an Ivy can easily apply to Goldman Sachs after he graduates and begin doing finance?</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think those positions are fulfilled for MBAs, and so that would falsify or belie your ending statement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, what do you want me to tell you? I’m just telling you how the banks hire, I’m not here to defend their hiring practices. </p>
<p>Heck, just a few days ago, I was talking to a woman who majored in history at Princeton…and was then hired by a Wall Street bank. {After that, she earned an MBA at Harvard Business School and then transitioned to strategy consulting.} </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me first answer your question with a question - why did Wall Street hire that woman with just a Princeton history BA? Presumably a BA is an even lower degree than an MA is. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I’m afraid I have to correct you because you are wrong. The question is not whether the MBA’s at, say, Harvard have an easier time obtaining finance jobs than will MA humanities students at Harvard. That’s not in dispute, but that’s also not the question on the table.</p>
<p>The question on the table is whether a Harvard humanities MA student have an easier time obtaining a Wall Street job than, say, a MS engineering student at a no-name school, and the answer is clearly yes. The reason for that is simple: Harvard has a plethora of Wall Street recruiters that populate the career services office - something that no-name schools lack. Furthermore, Harvard has an extensive alumni network which can be readily leveraged to contact those with hiring power at a Wall Street bank. Again, no-name schools generally lack this resource.</p>
<p>But the bottom-line truth - which may be shocking to some - is that the finance industry, frankly, doesn’t really care that much about what you studied in undergrad. They care far more about school branding and networking.</p>
<p>While investment banking groups target graduates of all elite U.S. universities, they especially go after Harvard and Princeton students. Recruitment events at Harvard and Princeton take place throughout the academic year, with alumni dazzling their Harvard and Princeton “family” members with investment banking stories. I asked my nephew about this (he’s a class of 2009 Princeton engineering grad) and while he was aware these recruiting events took place year round, he was surprised to learn that the investment banks went after Harvard and Princeton students regardless of their academic majors. The banks believe that their training programs will prepare humanities and social science majors for the rigors of investment banking, just as well as engineering and science students.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.quantnet.com/what-aspiring-investment-bankers-need-to-know-about-wall-street/[/url]”>http://www.quantnet.com/what-aspiring-investment-bankers-need-to-know-about-wall-street/</a></p>
<p>To reiterate, I’m not here to defend the hiring practices of Wall Street. I’m just informing you about what they are, but I had no hand in crafting them. If you disagree with those practices, then you are free to try to take it up with Wall Street. You can ask them why they would rather hire Ivy humanities students over engineering students from lesser schools. But it’s not my fault that they make that choice.</p>
<p>Would you be more marketable with an engineering degree from an ivy(ex Cornell) than just a liberal arts degree?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see, the hiring practices it seems are focused on names then, regardless of study. But would you wager it is a smart move then for an MA student in humanities at Columbia to apply to Wall Street/Goldman jobs upon graduation? Obviously it’s not guaranteed but would they have a very strong chance?</p>
<p>It seems to me that the competition is fierce with the pool of many Ivy MBA’s…you alluded to the woman you spoke with having a BA in history from Princeton, something must have made her case different though because she was competing with newly minted MBAs so how could she easily obtain that job? That is the question I was hoping you could expand on a bit further.</p>
<p>And another inquiry: did the lady you know have a lead that led her to that job, or was the offer strictly based on her background? Because you know how pertinent it is they say to have a lead in Wall Street to land a job, so I’m curious how she went through this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, she wasn’t competing with MBA’s. You must understand the standard career ladder of the financial services industry. Undergrads, and probably most MA students, are hired for analyst positions, which are understood to last for ~2-3 years. The top X% of those analysts will then be offered promotion directly to the associate level. Some other analysts will also be offered positions in VC/PE/HF. Some others will then take standard corporate finance positions in industry, or leave the financial sector entirely (for example, I know some who left their analyst positions to earn law degrees or enter PhD programs in economics/accounting/finance to prepare for careers in academia.} </p>
<p>However, the vast majority of former analysis will enter MBA programs. Upon graduation, many of them will take associate-level positions at banks or - even more desirably - VC/PE/HF firms. Of course, many others of them have no intention of re-entering finance whatsoever and will use the MBA program to transition to a different industry entirely. {Like I said above, that Princeton history graduate and former Ibanking analyst, after completing her MBA at Harvard Business School, took an associate position not in finance, but in strategy consulting at Bain.} </p>
<p>An MA humanities graduate, barring extenuating circumstances, would not likely be competing for the associate-level position that the MBA graduates are contending for, but rather one of the analyst positions along with the undergrads. But don’t feel sorry for them: not only does a first-year Ibanking analyst probably make double or even triple what many newly minted humanities PhD’s make, but finance pay packets grow exceedingly rapidly with experience. </p>
<p>Which leads to the ‘brilliant’ strategy that I’ve seen pursued some people from lower-tier schools at which the finance industry doesn’t recruit: win admission to a MA/PhD program at HYPS or other target finance recruiting school but with no actual intention of seriously pursuing a career in that academic discipline, but just leveraging the program as a means to gain access to finance recruiters. For example, I’ve heard of some such students who left their PhD programs in favor of consolation master’s degrees and then took jobs in finance (or consulting). Heck, I’ve heard of a few who never bothered to finish even the consolation master’s and just left the program without earning any degree at all… but with a coveted job offer in finance or consulting, which is what they actually wanted. Granted, the job offer was at the analyst level…but that’s still far better than anything else they could have gotten straight from their lower-tier undergrad program. </p>
<p>{Now, you may be asking why these people didn’t just obtain their MBA’s, as that would have probably been a more efficient pathway if it was available to them. But, let’s face it, most people, even with strong grades, can’t get into a top MBA program right out of undergrad without any work experience. But some of them can get into a top PhD program, as those programs don’t really care about work experience. And let’s be frank: with a humanities degree from a lower-tier school - even with top grades - you’re probably not going to get a opportunity-laden job that would allow you to build the strong work experience necessary to be admitted to a top MBA program. Hence, if you want a career in finance, then leveraging the brand name of an elite school through the MA/PhD-program-pathway may be the most realistic option you have.}</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I don’t know what you mean by ‘very strong chance’, as it’s all relative. These days, even a H/S/W MBA doesn’t have a guarantee to win a Wall Street offer. </p>
<p>But what I will say is that Columbia MA humanities graduate has a far better chance at a Wall Street offer than a MS engineering graduate from a no-name school, for the simple reason that the banks simply don’t recruit at the latter school which means that the chances there are effectively 0%. The bottom line is that if you want a Wall Street offer, you have to go to where they recruit, which is at only a handful of (top) schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for clarifying and for the rest of your post. It seems then that the only terminal Master’s degree at Princeton is the Near Eastern Studies major, aside from the Woodrow Wilson School of Policy which, unsurprisingly, requires hefty work experience and the like. That is actually interesting then: win admission into a terminal Master’s and upon graduating, seek nothing other than Wall Street for your job prospects.</p>
<p>There is also the Master of Divinity program at Harvard, where it clearly states that some of their graduates go on to management and consulting:</p>
<p>[Harvard</a> Divinity School - Career Services](<a href=“http://www.hds.harvard.edu/careers/]Harvard”>Career Services | Harvard Divinity School (HDS))</p>
<p>Defeats the purpose much? Or smart move if you want in? I think this gambit is well-nigh grounds for questioning though by Wall Street when they recruit at Princeton. Won’t they know that the student intentionally sought a Master’s in Near Eastern Studies for the hope of getting in (OR, conversely, wouldn’t they LIKE that strategic impulse embedded in the student for their purpose of landing as an analyst and therefore not question their motives)?</p>
<p>Surely Wall Street I would assume would appreciate that kind of charisma in students because they are tactically attempting to gain an analyst position through a sensible alternative, and that is by majoring in humanities at such an Ivy.</p>
<p>But strategies and alternatives aside, the record needs to be clear: would Wall Street recruiters begin piercing the student on why he/she is suddenly interested in finance despite a total opposite academic discipline and therefore the plan would backfire against the student? That extremely likely scenario has yet to be addressed (assuming of course that Wall Street doesn’t care what you do or why you did it, just so long as you have Princeton behind you, then the major or degree becomes irrelevant and only your ambition to join them is what matters). </p>
<p>And another thing we forgot to mention: is Wall Street bias-free when it comes to the age of the applicant who is an MA graduate (meaning do they hire all qualified students without regard to age?)</p>
<p>That is the biggest question I think we need to address.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet who says you need to restrict yourself to only terminal master’s degree programs? Like I said, you could enter a PhD program with the express intent of leaving with the consolation master’s - or heck, no degree at all - while seeking employment in the finance industry. After all, if all you’re seeking is an analyst position, you don’t really need to complete a graduate degree. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see how that’s any different from the Ivy humanities undergrad nevertheless being offered a job in finance. Yet that seems to be precisely what happened to that Princeton woman who majored in history and became a Wall Street trader. What exactly does a history bachelor’s have to do with a finance job? Doesn’t seem to be less of a stretch than a Near Eastern Studies MA. </p>
<p>Furthermore, let’s be honest, engineering isn’t particularly highly related to finance either. Except for certain research and higher-end synthetic structured finance positions - which somebody with a BS or even an MS engineering graduate isn’t really qualified to fill anyway - finance analyst jobs do not really require significant quantitative knowledge beyond quick arithmetic and how to populate a spreadsheet. As an analyst, you’re not going to be building new models and certainly not new instruments; you’re just going to be using the models and instruments that were provided to you. </p>
<p>As a more general point, the fact is, most finance analysts did not major in a field that is closely related to the finance industry. A finance or business-administration major would probably be the closest equivalent, yet most top private schools where the finance industry tends to recruit do not offer those majors. Even the economics major has surprisingly little to do with the finance industry. {The economics discipline as it stands today is focused upon calculating market equilibrium points, but if the markets were always truly in equilibrium, then there would be no need to ever trade.}</p>
<p>So whatever uncomfortable questions might be directed towards a MA humanities graduate who wants a finance job could just as easily be directed to all of the undergrads from unrelated disciplines - including engineering - who are also seeking finance jobs. I don’t see why the MA humanities students are being singled out. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure there must be some age limit. If you’re a 40-year-old MA graduate, you’re probably be looked at askance if you’re requesting an analyst position. </p>
<p>At the same time, we have to recognize that not everybody graduates from undergrad at age 21-22. Plenty of graduates are substantially older, having taken time off to do other things. For example, I can think of a number of Mormons at Ivy schools who withdrew to serve 2-year missions and therefore graduated from college at age ~24. Yet those who wanted them didn’t seem to have any problem garnering finance analyst offers. Hence, I don’t see why it would be so outrageous for a 24-25 year old Ivy MA graduate to seek the same finance offer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We would only contemplate a Master’s because (for me at least), a PhD program is far too lengthy and unnecessary if the openly expressed intent is Wall Street so why not meet the prerequisite for that intention by quickly completing the least lengthy academic field of study (which, in this case, would be a Master’s)? I don’t know why one would consider completing a PhD when all one wants to do is enter Wall Street as soon as possible, so I think that is why one ought restrict themselves to a terminal Master’s in order to land Wall Street sooner rather than later. Good move or is there something we’re missing? Also, the latter part of your paragraph said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t that contradicting what was earlier established? Sure, analyst positions are open to undergrads from the target schools (which fulfills the fact that you don’t need to complete a graduate degree if you already have a BA from a target school like your friend had), but you inferred that MA students need to have the “Ivy name” attached to their MA humanities degree in order to be competitive for the analyst position (whereas the MBA is for the associate role).</p>
<p>So I’m not sure what was meant here because unless one is seeking an analyst position with a conferred BA in history from Princeton for example (the lady you mentioned), then it becomes a necessity for one to obtain the MA at a target Ivy because that is most likely the only sure-fire way of landing an analyst position with Wall Street (since you lacked the Ivy status in undergrad). Therefore you can “try again” with an MA at an Ivy to get that analyst job. Bring that back to the statement:
</p>
<p>Sorry if we’re being redundant here but just wanted to clear things up.</p>
<p>Now, if you don’t mind, addressing the issue of WHICH Ivy to attend for your MA in humanities seems trivial since you are likely at a target school, but we need to connect the dots and not forget the resources.</p>
<p>For an MA student in humanities who wants to land the best chance they can as an analyst at Wall Street, wouldn’t it be in his or her best interest to choose the school DIRECTLY near banking headquarters, so as to have the chance to intern during the year or summer at banking firms or boutiques?</p>
<p>That school, is obviously Columbia. Wouldn’t it therefore be a better move on the potential MA student to choose Columbia over Princeton or Harvard for that matter because they can begin mobilizing their interests at Wall Street during their studies and thus begin building a ladder for themselves? So they get the best of both worlds by attending Columbia, since it’d be much less practical or realistic to intern at Wall Street when you are attending Princeton for your MA for example. </p>
<p>Why not get the best of both worlds by attending Columbia and interning with banking firms which are virtually down the street from you (and come campus recruiting time, Wall Street folks will notice that, an opportunity of “interning down the street” not afforded to Harvard or Princeton MA’s thus not having the beneficial resources Columbia has for MA students who pursue this interning strategy as part of their extracurricular activities).</p>
<p>Would you not advocate that over attending Harvard or Princeton?</p>
<p>After all, you need to demonstrate some competence or familiarity in finance, and the chance is made readily available to you if an MA student chooses Columbia over H/P, because then they can initiate at least a few steps by really getting involved with Wall Street while Harvard folks can only rely on their school to hedge their way as an analyst. Columbia MA folks would already have their target school AND the overabundance of interning opportunities made directly available to them. Not so much with Princeton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are missing something: who ever said anything about actually completing the PhD? The fact of the matter is, nationwide, no more than half of all incoming PhD students will actually complete the PhD, with the proportion being far smaller in certain disciplines. Humanities PhD programs are particularly notorious for high attrition rates. Even if the finance industry was not a realistic option, every incoming PhD students would be well advised to consider what he will do if he doesn’t actually complete the PhD. </p>
<p>However, most PhD students who don’t finish the PhD will often times be able to complete a consolation master’s, which aren’t that hard to complete and are often times an interim process of the PhD program itself. For example, while the Harvard English department does not offer a terminal MA program, most of the PhD students - including those who don’t finish - can pick up a consolation MA. </p>
<p>But even that may not be necessary, as explained below. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re simply confusing yourself through overcomplicating the issue. I specifically stated that prospective finance analysts don’t need any graduate degree at all. But what they do need is access to recruiters which is available at only a handful of schools. The key then is to obtain access to those schools. Actually finishing the graduate degree, while helpful, then becomes secondary. I don’t know about anybody else here, but I would rather drop out of graduate school with no degree at all if I was offered the job that I desire rather than obtain the degree but not obtain the job that I desire. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But now you’re asking an entirely fundamentally different question than you were before. The original question you posited was whether it was better to study engineering at a low-level school rather than humanities at an elite school. That was the question that I was originally answering, and I believe that question has been put to bed, has it not? If not, let’s continue to discuss it.</p>
<p>Now, if you want to ask a different question that parses the differences amongst the various Ivies in terms of which pathway provides superior opportunities to enter the finance industry. You argue that Columbia is the ‘obvious’ choice over Harvard or Princeton because of propinquity. But that is entirely unobvious to me, for like I said, plenty of Harvard and Princeton humanities undergrads are nevertheless able to obtain Wall Street jobs, despite most of them having minimal finance experience. That Princeton history woman certainly didn’t have any, yet that didn’t seem to hurt her. She freely admits that she knew next to nothing about the finance industry before she got her offer. </p>
<p>I don’t doubt that internships surely have some value. But that value seems to be quite limited. Whether we agree or not, the finance industry seems to place tremendous emphasis upon the brand more so than practical experience and knowledge. Harvard and Princeton seem to be more heavily targeted schools for recruitment than even hometown Columbia and certainly more so than any of the other NYC schools. </p>
<p>{Note, I also happen to disagree with the lemma that “Harvard folks can only rely on their school to hedge their way as an analyst” or that Princeton students are utterly bereft with opportunities. Boston is one of the leading financial centers in the country, home to a large asset management industry and a larger venture capital industry than New York has. Princeton is only about a 90 minute commute away from New York. If you think that’s bad, hey, I used to put up with a commute that was longer than 90 minutes. Furthermore, that Princeton-New York commute can be completed by train, which means that you can use it to sleep or to do work. </p>
<p>Perhaps more importantly, Boston/Cambridge is home to two of the leading finance and accounting research universities in the world. The Quarterly Journal of Economics is edited at Harvard and published by MIT Press. The majority of editors at the Journal of Accounting & Economics are from MIT. Hence, there are a bevy of research positions in academic finance available - perhaps unpaid - to any Harvard (or MIT) students who want them. Princeton too obviously is a substantial research university, home to top ranked economics and financial engineering departments. You can spend your spare time writing a research paper on the financial system as Harvard undergrad Anna-Katherine Barnett-Hart did. She’s now working for Goldman.</p>
<p>Now, I can agree that Columbia surely offers more geographic opportunities for extracurricular opportunities in finance than do other schools - although those opportunities are far from necessary. But to say that those other schools don’t offer any opportunities at all is clearly false.} </p>
<p>[Former</a> Boulderite A.K. Barnett-Hart’s senior thesis has become a go-to guide to the financial crisis - Page 1 - News - Denver - Westword](<a href=“http://www.westword.com/2010-03-25/news/former-boulderite-a-k-barnett-hart-s-senior-thesis-has-become-a-go-to-guide-to-the-financial-crisis/]Former”>http://www.westword.com/2010-03-25/news/former-boulderite-a-k-barnett-hart-s-senior-thesis-has-become-a-go-to-guide-to-the-financial-crisis/)</p>
<p>[Does</a> Michael Lewis’ Harvard Thesis Exonerate Goldman? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com](<a href=“http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/03/20/does-michael-lewis-harvard-thesis-exonerate-goldman/]Does”>Does Michael Lewis’ Harvard Thesis Exonerate Goldman? | TIME.com)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is just less difficult to enroll in a master’s program because they are assuredly easier to gain admission to and less competitive than a PhD program which is why one ought intend to enroll in the former. As you pointed out, one can exit with a consolation master’s if the PhD is pursued, but why waste the time and resources when you can do that with a master’s program at a target school that is less competitive to gain entry to? Why not just take the less taxing route? </p>
<p>I see what you mean though when stating that one ought take it even further by enrolling in a terminal’ master’s and then withdrawing because you have access to a target school where Wall Street recruits. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>THIS is where I don’t see what you mean. When you are at Princeton for example enrolled in your MA in Near Eastern Studies and Wall Street comes for career week to recruit on your campus, are you saying that one ought go to career fair that day and inform recruiters that you are enrolled in a humanities MA and then drop out of their program assuming they offer you a position? You said the key is to obtain ACCESS to target schools. Understood, but if you don’t finish your MA and drop out then how could that possibly grant you your analyst role? You’re saying all you need is access to the target schools; okay but when they recruit you and give you an offer and you then subsequently withdraw from your MA program then HOW could they hire you if you do NOT have an MA?</p>
<p>[Level</a> Of Entry | Barclays Capital - Campus Recruitment](<a href=“http://graduate.barclayscapital.com/location/americas/our-programmes/level-of-entry-americas]Level”>http://graduate.barclayscapital.com/location/americas/our-programmes/level-of-entry-americas)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The weasel word there is ‘possibly’, as we have pointed out it becomes secondary if you are at the target school. But I still don’t understand WHY you ought drop out of your MA if they come to recruit at your school; are you suggesting that upon a job offer you will then have to inform them that you “dropped out” of your MA program? That would not only irredeemably go against you, because they will think you are lazy and irresponsible, but will also not give you the ALUMNI IVY that these recruiters are looking for, since as you stated they want Ivy degree HOLDERS to represent their company. That’s not going to be the case then if you drop out.</p>
<p>Please address any discrepancies here because I’m pointing out what is pertinent to the logistics of being hired, as the whole “dropping out of your MA” deal is still cumbersome for me to understand or see what you mean.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see what you mean in that Boston has those interning opportunities for MA students at Harvard as it is only 10-12 minutes away from Cambridge (by car). So, it does seem that attending Harvard can be a little better for recruitment than Columbia.</p>
<p>And even with Princeton, the lady you mentioned had no finance or interning experience whatsoever, yet was hired with a BA in history. </p>
<p>However, you state in your culminating sentence that the commute from Princeton to New York can be done by TRAIN (if one intends to intern at NY while at Princeton), and for some, that is not at all practical: you have to calculate the monetary costs of paying for the train virtually every other day if you intend to intern in New York.</p>
<p>Therefore, when it comes to Columbia at least, wouldn’t it be: Columbia<=Princeton in terms of recruiting for Wall Street because in order to counter-balance the “minimal” drop in target school name, that can somehow be compensated for by interning with 2 or even more banks/VC industries in NYC while at Columbia for your MA?</p>
<p>I’m not discounting the fact that Princeton MA’s will have a little better recruiting prospects than Columbia MA’s ** BUT ** can that issue NOT be completely compensated for by interning with more boutiques/firms in NY when at Columbia so as to then “bring you up on par” with the Princeton MA’s who don’t at all intern?</p>
<p>Plus, Columbia has an MA offer in Human Rights, which, at least in my opinion, seems more intriguing than Near Easter Studies MA at Princeton. But if the goal is “100% stronger chance” to get in as an analyst, then would it be best for the student to get:</p>
<p>MA at Princeton/no interning
or
MA at Columbia/interning + more opportunities</p>
<p>If the first option is more promising, can’t the Columbia option though counter-balance any risk averse effects or doubts by attending the slightly lower ranked target school simply by interning more in NY and building relationships and the like, thereby in some way recouping the loss of not attending Princeton THROUGH this interning experience?</p>
<p>Wouldn’t that make Wall Street recruiters just as attached to that Columbia MA as they are attached to the non-interning Princeton MA?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given that there are generally fewer terminal master’s programs around, it’s not clear to me that that pathway is truly easier. To take the example of Princeton, to even be admitted to the terminal master’s program in Near Eastern Studies, I would have to imagine that you would actually have to demonstrate some bare modicum of talent for Near Eastern Studies. What if you lack that talent? </p>
<p>I’m not even entirely sure that you would be saving resources by choosing the terminal master’s over a PhD program. Keep in mind that most PhD students are funded, albeit modestly, whereas terminal master’s students rarely are. One could therefore leverage a PhD program as a paid job search. {Whether such behavior is ethical is a different matter.} </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re wrong from a definitional standpoint: to be an alumni, strictly speaking, is to simply be a former student of a particular school. You do not have to graduate to be an alumni. </p>
<p>*Alumni: a graduate or former student of a specific school, college, or university. *</p>
<p>[Alumni</a> | Define Alumni at Dictionary.com](<a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alumni]Alumni”>ALUMNI Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By the same reasoning that they hire plenty of undergrads who (obviously) don’t have an MA. Nobody accuses them of being lazy and irresponsible just because they never completed an MA. So why would they accuse you? You have a bachelor’s degree, just like the rest of the analysts do, so what’s the problem? </p>
<p>I’ll give you two examples, albeit from the consulting industry, although I doubt that the finance industry would be significantly different. I know a guy who planned to complete the combined BS/MEng program at MIT. But then he garnered a consulting analyst job offer and so decided to drop out of the MEng program (although he still completed the BS). The consulting firm didn’t seem to care; heck, I doubt that they even noticed. Certainly nobody accused him of being ‘lazy and irresponsible’ just because he dropped out of his master’s program. </p>
<p>I know another guy at the all-but-dissertation stage of his PhD whereupon he decided to join a consulting firm, telling them that he planned to complete the PhD at a future date on a part-time basis. Well, that future date is long passed, he still hasn’t finished his PhD, and as far as I can tell, hasn’t made any significant progress towards doing so. Yet that consulting firm is nevertheless still continues to employ him, and indeed, has actually promoted him. {He now says that he hopes to finish his PhD by the end of 2011; I’m rather skeptical, and frankly, he doesn’t really need it.} </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course not - the far more tactful strategy is to simply not mention it. After all, you never promised that you would complete the master’s, and the master’s was not a formal requirement for the job, the only requirement being a bachelor’s (which you have). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please read my posts more carefully. I never said that you ought to drop out of the program. Obviously if you can complete the program, you should certainly do so, and in fact, I specifically advised that doing so would be helpful. </p>
<p>What I said is that you’re not required to complete the program. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Monthly train pass costs $360 a month, and almost certainly less with a student discount. That’s easily affordable for anybody who truly has a daily internship. </p>
<p>And besides, if you were truly serious, you wouldn’t be commuting from Princeton at all, but rather serving a summer internship in New York. After all, most graduate programs do not require that you actually be located physically at your university during the summer (although, granted, some PhD programs might suspend your stipend during the summer if you’re not present). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to say that I frankly don’t know: you’re asking me to quantifiably calibrate tiny differences in magnitude, and I’m afraid that I can’t do that with sufficient precision. I suppose it would depend on the nature of the internship and how well you performed on it. </p>
<p>However, I think what is clear is that earning a MA in humanities from an Ivy is far more effective than earning an MS in engineering - or even in finance - from a no-name school iif the goal is a job offer in the finance industry. </p>
<p>What would be more effective than all of that - probably even more effective than a H/S/W MBA - is to earn a Master’s in Finance from an elite school that serves as a clear gateway to Wall Street. I suspect that somebody with an undergrad engineering background would be a more viable candidate at those programs than at a graduate humanities program. </p>
<p>[Master</a> in Finance - Bendheim Center for Finance - Princeton University](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/bcf/graduate/]Master”>http://www.princeton.edu/bcf/graduate/)</p>
<p>[Master</a> of Finance Program](<a href=“http://mitsloan.mit.edu/academic/mfin/]Master”>http://mitsloan.mit.edu/academic/mfin/)</p>
<p>[M.S</a>. Financial Engineering](<a href=“http://www.ieor.columbia.edu/pages/graduate/ms_financial_eng/index.html]M.S”>http://www.ieor.columbia.edu/pages/graduate/ms_financial_eng/index.html)</p>
<p>[MSFM</a> - Home](<a href=“http://finmath.uchicago.edu/new/msfm/home/index.php]MSFM”>http://finmath.uchicago.edu/new/msfm/home/index.php)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/MFE/[/url]”>http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/MFE/</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://finmath.stanford.edu/index.html[/url]”>http://finmath.stanford.edu/index.html</a></p>
<p>One could also pursue a doctorate in finance or accounting at, say, Harvard Business School, the MIT Sloan School, Wharton, Chicago GSB, Stanford GSB, etc. and then perhaps drop down to a consolation master’s (or if necessary, not even graduate at all).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those analysts who were hired from undergrad I assume were right out of Harvard Princeton and Wharton. So that’s probably why they don’t have the MA. For those of us who do not have the Ivy BA, we would now have to obtain an Ivy non-MBA master’s (such as the MA) to land a role as an analyst.</p>
<p>So I think that is the problem if that answers your question. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s interesting regarding the paid job search part, but getting into an Ivy PhD program is a much more difficult climb than getting into an Ivy terminal master’s, as the GPA’s are higher and the like. </p>
<p>And what year of operation in the Phd program would recruitment begin for the student? You want to do this as soon as possible, so would recruiters have no problem speaking to a 1st year Phd student in humanities for instance? Right then, he is offered an analyst position lets say, so then he just withdraws from his first year of the program and takes up Wall Street. And you say the strategy here for the student is to exit his program, and not mention the fact to his employers (once he’s an analyst) that he left the program? I don’t see how this works because the employers at Goldman lets say will undoubtedly ask him “when do you start school again?” after his first year of study, to which he will then be forced to answer: “I actually dropped out now that I took up your analyst offer.” - Are you suggesting this answer will not at all be frowned upon and the employers just cared about hiring an Ivy student at the time, and not necessarily a graduate of any program?</p>
<p>IF that is the case, then yes, as you state, the PhD program at the Ivy would be a better move because you are funded whereas in the terminal master’s you are not, so that would be the better choice, however the only issue inhibiting that option would be a student who does not meet the rigorous pre-requisites of an Ivy PhD program in order to be admitted.</p>
<p>And in that case, the terminal master’s would suffice for the plan as the requirements are less stringent, and all of the aforementioned above I assume would be the SAME case for the MA student who leaves after his first year of operation in the program as would the PhD student leave in his first year of operation.</p>
<p>Do you see that? Sorry for the consistent extrapolation but just want to be very intricately clear here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Monthly” is the key word - and how many months in an academic year? Quite a lot, so when it adds up you’ve spent a lot of money - even with the applied discount. That very same opportunity to intern in NY by commuting from train is afforded to Columbia MA’s right down the street, with virtually no amount of money spent since you can easily get to the banks/boutiques by walking, biking, subway, and the like.</p>
<p>Also, I think with all that money you spend over 7 or 8 months in the academic year can instead be used for other purposes while at Columbia that you wouldn’t have the chance to do if you were at Princeton for example, because all your money is being spent on the TRAIN (such as enrolling in a finance course or taking a workshop at Columbia by using all that train money you would have used on these programs instead).</p>
<p>That is probably a lot better of a plan, versus just attending Princeton alone and using expenses to get to and from NY for interning while in your MA program (but even then it’s still obvious that Wall Street recruiters will undoubtedly recruit from NY’s only Ivy, Columbia. That is a given.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and those programs are very intense and rigorous, and very unlikely as you alluded to geared toward individuals who come from non-finance backgrounds. </p>
<p>That’s why I posit Ivy MA’s who also came from the arts in their undergrads should stick with the initial plan of getting into a non-MBA graduate program at an Ivy so as to still land that analyst role and then, if they truly want to move forward, perhaps begin an MBA after working as an analyst for some time, like your Princeton BA lady did. </p>
<p>But in her case, she just needed to apply to the analyst role because she already had her bachelor’s from an Ivy.</p>
<p>Those of us who didn’t have the Ivy BA/BS, would certainly have to enroll in a graduate program at an Ivy to get that “second chance” as an analyst, since we all know that analysts can only be recruited from Ivies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think so. It is well understood by the banks that the hardest part of schools such as Harvard, Princeton, or Wharton is simply getting in; once you’re in, graduating is just a (admittedly long and drawn-out) formality. </p>
<p>It is for this reason that finance and consulting firms will hire all-but-dissertation PhD candidates who not only won’t have completed their PhD’s, but in many cases won’t even have completed consolation master’s. For example, most (perhaps all) of the PhD finance or accounting students at Harvard or MIT could drop out to obtain finance jobs right now without having earned any graduate degree whatsoever. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would you say that? Heck, why would you even officially drop out at all? What you would actually do is take an academic withdrawal, which most respectable schools allow students to do without penalty. For example, I can think of several people who have withdrawn from graduate programs at Harvard and MIT, whether to start their own companies, or (not uncommonly) to have children, or (in one unusual case) to produce and direct a film she wanted to make. Heck, in the case of the last example, this was the second time she has withdrawn from Harvard to direct her own films. </p>
<p>One can take some more famous examples. Bill Gates, Matt Damon, and Mark Zuckerberg never officially ‘dropped out’ of Harvard although that is often times how their actions are colloquially described. What they actually did is withdraw; they are free to return to finish their degrees at any time. Actress Elisabeth Shue withdrew from Harvard to pursue an acting career and eventually returned to graduate at age 37. </p>
<p>Hence, to answer the question: “when do you start school again”, should anybody bizarrely ask you such a question, the best answer would be: “When this analyst position is complete”. After all, it is well understood that analyst positions last only 2-3 years, after which the vast majority of analysts will return to school of some sort, usually an MBA although sometimes a PhD or law degree program. In your case, you could simply argue that you’re actually ahead of the curve as you’ve already been accepted to a PhD program and have officially withdrawn, but can reactivate your status at the conclusion of your analyst stint. {Whether you actually choose to do so would be your call; after all, plenty of incoming analysts think they will head for B-school after their stint is complete, but then later opt not to do so, and nobody holds that against them.} </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ask yourself - why do they hire all-but-dissertation PhD students who have yet to complete any graduate degree? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, have you ever lived in New York? You will pay a heck of a lot more than just $360 a month merely in extra rent alone to live in New York vs. Princeton NJ. New York is one of the most expensive cities in the world. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They do not require a finance background per se, although they do certainly require a strong quantitative background. Strong training within an engineering program, especially one that emphasizes computational and numerical analysis, may well satisfy the requirements. </p>
<p>For example, nearly half of the Master’s of Finance program at MIT came from backgrounds in engineering, computer science, math, or pure science. </p>
<p>[Class</a> Profile — Master of Finance Program](<a href=“http://mitsloan.mit.edu/academic/mfin/profile.php]Class”>http://mitsloan.mit.edu/academic/mfin/profile.php)</p>
<p>The goal of this thread - or so I thought - was to help engineering undergrads who don’t attend target schools find ways to enter the finance industry, and I contend that a Master’s or PhD program in finance at an elite school is the most straightforward pathway. Those programs actually value the quantitative background that engineering students have developed and therefore can serve as the bridge between that quant background and the elite brand name that the finance industry desires. That certainly seems to be a far more feasible pathway than having an engineering undergrad enter a humanities graduate program. {In fact, I now regret having even brought that up, as the purpose was not to suggest that engineers should enter humanities grad programs but rather to demonstrate that the banks care far more about school brand name than they do the actual educational background of the student. For the same reason, I do not recommend any of the graduate finance programs at no-name schools.} </p>
<p>Another pathway is to enter a graduate engineering program at a brand-name school such as MIT, Stanford, or an Ivy. For example, I can think of plenty of MIT engineering grad students who took jobs in the finance industry.</p>
<p>Consider David Danielson, who earned his PhD in Materials Science at MIT and then immediately became a venture capitalist at General Catalyst Partners. {He recently resigned to become a Program Director at an agency in the Department of Energy that promotes renewable energy.} He had never held a full-time job in his life, whether as a finance analyst or as an engineer, his only work experience being a couple of undergrad engineering coops. Nevertheless, he was hired by a top VC firm right out of school. Why slave away as a banking analyst, or even an associate, if you can skip all of that to becoming a venture capitalist directly? </p>
<p>[Dr</a>. David Danielson](<a href=“http://arpa-e.energy.gov/About/Team/DrDavidDanielson.aspx]Dr”>http://arpa-e.energy.gov/About/Team/DrDavidDanielson.aspx)</p>
<p>Now, granted, I certainly don’t expect everybody to become David Danielson. However, Danielson epitomizes the types of opportunities available to engineers who are willing to leverage them.</p>
<p>This topic has so many ridiculously long posts</p>