<p>I got off the WL for Wharton (still waiting for my financial aid), but I'm in a sort of dilemma choosing between MIT and Penn.
My main fear of MIT's Sloan is that it does not provide such a great alumni network as Wharton does--Sloan graduates 50 undergrads a year compared to Wharton's 600. The great thing about Sloan is that it can offer a very quantitative/technical background to finance, which is the path I want to pursue.
So comment away. Appreciate it.</p>
<p>Wharton is #1 in finance and wall street firms feel that it offers a quantitative enough background for them to hire Wharton graduates in droves. It really doesn't matter which school you go to for undergrad, so I'd just wait for the aid package to come out and go to whichever is cheaper.</p>
<p>There are many people from MIT work on Wall Street. Most of them are not from Sloan. Math, Physics and Engineering. Both undergraduates and Ph.Ds, specially in the quant areas. If you are interested in quantitative area, go to MIT.</p>
<p>Wharton is almost universally ranked #1 for finance, and there should be more than enough quantitative/technical material available to satisfy you. If there weren't, Wharton's finance department probably would not be ranked #1 so consistently.</p>
<p>Plus, Wharton offers a greater quantity and variety of business courses to take in addition to your finance courses than you'll find at MIT, and Penn similarly offers a greater quantity and variety of liberal arts courses to take in addition to your business courses than you'll find at MIT.</p>
<p>OP - Don't take my words for it. Go to hotjob.com and search the area you are interested in to get your job 4 years from now and see what is required and compare which school offers the most. Just remember Wall Street firms are willing (and expecting )to train you in business/finance, but not Math/Tech. Ranking is for HR, not for hiring manager.</p>
<p>I would go to Wharton, just because Penn is much more fun than MIT.</p>
<p>The only reason I'm in Wharton is for the alumni network. The finance you learn at one place, is the same finance you learn at another place.
The only difference is you have more of an incentive to learn at Wharton b/c of the great professors and the competitive atmosphere where everyone is pushing everyone else to succeed. </p>
<p>From my experience with hedge funds and finance, it seems like the biggest need is for kids who know finance and programming. A lot of things are going quantitative, and I really believe that's the wave of the future. Right now lots of funds are making programs based on financial indicators. But in the future there's going to be so many quant based funds in the market, that you will soon be programming based on how other firms' programs evaluate the market. At least it's going to be that way from an institutional investing standpoint. </p>
<p>I believe Sloan would be the way to go, if your interested in combining finance and advanced mathematics/programming. </p>
<p>You can do this at Penn as well but you have to be extremely bright. You would have to be in the M&T program, where you graduate with degrees from Wharton and SEAS (the engineering school). M&T's have to fufill so many credit requirements it wouldn't be worth it to me. So I would still say go to Sloan.</p>
<p>^ I don't see why a Wharton student couldn't take a lot of quantitative/technical courses (in Wharton, SEAS, or otherwise) WITHOUT being in the M&T program, thereby avoiding the need to fulfill all of its credit requirements for dual degrees. Am I missing something?</p>
<p>^You could get your BS in Econ from Wharton and minor in CSE and Math petty easily.</p>
<p>This is purely my opinion based on the brief experience I have</p>
<p>In Wharton a major is 4 courses, a minor in the college or engineering is 6-8 courses, so adding on two minors (math and cse) would be difficult. </p>
<p>The big difference for me is that having an engineering degree and CSE as your major is much more impressive than a minor. I guess that's why I never considered that option, but you could certainly do a minor in some quantitative area. </p>
<p>Re-reading your question, your main problem seems to be that finance at Wharton is not quantitative enough. Let me assure you it is, it's all numbers. </p>
<p>If you interested in technology or trading, where you could really apply advanced math skills, I would still suggest Sloan though. I don't think anyone can argue that MIT teaches the quantitative fields and CSE much better than Penn does.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The great thing about Sloan is that it can offer a very quantitative/technical background to finance, which is the path I want to pursue.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think to pursue a career as a quant, a graduate degree in financial engineering/quantitative finance is almost a prerequisite (there might be exceptions, im not sure)....I'm assuming you're going to apply to such graduate programs, so it won't make that much of a difference where you do your undergrad....that being said, I think Wharton is a better choice because it might be easier to clinch internships from there and you can probably take the same math/computer science classes in both, Penn and MIT....also, Wharton has a stronger alumni network in finance</p>
<p>You'll get equally amazing jobs with both. Difference is you'll have a much better time at Penn and develop crucial socializing/networking skillz</p>