We’re getting into the weeds, and a territory I’m not very familiar with, but it appears as Stanford does indeed offer a MS in computational finance through the department of engineering.
Lots of other big names do something similar including Penn, CMU, Michigan and Georgia Tech. They may not be the pinnacle, but they may offer a path of good enough given the desire to play sports and the SAT.
This is exactly how I feel. There are plenty of careers where the brand makes a difference but for the median student the differences are probably not so meaningful. As much as I hate relentlessly hyping up rankings, I equally disagree with the simplistic “rankings don’t matter” perspective.
To show why we are not off into the weeds, I am going to pull three quotes from the OP.
To summarize, his son is athletically strong, is interested in math, Econ or quant, but is wondering if an Ivy League degree matters.
As I said, I am very current on quant hiring. My advice is straightforward. If the OP’s son can leverage his athletic talent into admission to MIT, Harvard, or Princeton, he should do so. The reason is that students at those colleges will get called for the initial interview more often than other colleges. Succeeding in those interviews is still difficult, but at least you are in the process.
If the son is more interested in pure math than quant, again it’s the same three colleges at the top. If Econ is the primary interest, it’s the same three colleges with the addition of UChicago.
I am not saying these are the only paths, just that they are the easiest paths.
@rightofreag , I can provide even more info. Send me a PM if interested.
I’m not disagreeing. I’m saying we’re in the weeds because we’re discussing a VERY specific and narrow path for a student that hasn’t even chosen a major yet.
Another point. At the top colleges, math is universally recognized as a difficult major. In comparison, at some public universities there are different math major tracks ranging from theoretical to secondary school teaching. I would hope but am not confident about all employers recognizing the different tracks and the differences therein.
I cannot speak for all employers. But any employer that hires for quant roles (ranging from actuary to any sort of statistical modeling-- and of course- financial institutions) is well aware of the different tracks and the differences therein.
Which is why I get a lot of hate mail on CC for suggesting that a kid interested in marketing should major in math, stats, or psych (with a heavy math track). The plain vanilla “math for business majors” is not adequate for today’s marketing roles which are heavy duty analytical. It’s not enough to know “this is a regression”. You need to be able to interpret data!
Yes I am sure quant employers are aware. Other industrial employers who merely prefer quantitative skills but are not as hard core may not be.
Students and new grads are often stunned that “even sales jobs” require strong analytical skills. No, you aren’t pricing esoteric financial instruments. But if you are working for an industrial company whose products cost several million dollars and up (aircraft components, heating systems for hospitals, MRI machinery and associated software systems) you aren’t hiring people whose math education focused on teaching long division to fourth graders.
Not to disparage math majors who focused on K-8 education. It’s critically important. But there’s a substantive difference in the classes one takes- and industrial employers are well aware of the differences.
Just pricing out a sophisticated sales contract (which might take years of negotiations to complete) which has complex issues around service, residual value, lease to own, IP ownership and innovation, product liability, etc.) takes strong analytical skills. Much to the chagrin of new grads who think that “I can always get a job in sales” if Plan A doesn’t pan out!
Any thoughts on Swarthmore or CalTech in this context? I.e., would students at Swarthmore be called for the intial interview less often than those at MIT, for example?
TIA.
Are you talking about pure math, quant, or Econ? I can answer the quant question the best.
My son seems to be more interested in applied math than pure, but, at 17, isn’t too sure.
So the quant info would be most relevant, but any insights you can provide on pure or econ would also be appreciated.
Friendly suggestion: you may want to start your own thread, or go to PM, rather than take over OP’s thread.
Thanks.
I agree with DadOfJerseyGirl. Send me a PM.
I am not a moderator - but it seems in line with the thread topic and OP’s original question. I am sure there are other who, like me, would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this, particularly re: Caltech.
On the one hand, Caltech has a well-deserved reputation for the utmost academic rigor.
On the other hand, their Putnam showings are underwhelming. 
I’d presume it is a wash - hard to imagine any kid being penalized for only going to Caltech.
Please feel free to start a Caltech specific thread so we don’t hijack the thread from the OP.
Long division rules. Just saying. 
Fractions ain’t bad either. But sometimes you need to pull out the heavy artillery…
Terry Tao is very much in the camp that they can be fun, but don’t do much to predict future success in modern math.
Probably could be it’s own thread too.
They go a long way towards predicting success with getting hired at quant firms though.
So much so that lists of top math competitions’ sponsors read like a who is who of quantitative finance.
ETA: I will also leave this piece by Evan Chen here (may the mods have mercy on me):
I think that’s a great post, and doesn’t conflict with what Tao said. They are very analogous to sports and all the benefits they bring.
Where I disagree is in the assumption that they are a useful tool beyond that. MIT, more that any other school, places emphasis on them. Yet Harvard, Princeton and Stanford, hardly represented in the results are also very well know for placing students into good “quant” positions.
@hebegebe could say more, but I personally don’t think it doesn’t signal much more than MITs attraction to them.
What I also think is that if a student is set in stone about attending MIT, they’d improve their odds by being involved.
It’s the last I’ll say because it is a bit of a tangent. It is however germane to the OPs fields of interest and a school they may be attracted to.