Which is better? MBA or MSc in Quantitative Finance

[Anonymous]

Assuming you could get into one of the top 10 schools either way? For someone who is also writing actuarial exams, what kinds of jobs might be available.

Also, for the MSc in Quant. Finance, where can I find the best rated schools. I know U of Chicago and Carnegie are up there, but what is the pecking order?

[Dr T Non-Fan]

For top MBA schools:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/beyond/gradrank/mba/gdmbat1.htm


For Finance (can't tell if this encompasses F.E.):
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/beyond/gradrank/gbmbasp2.htm

[Anonymous]

Tell me why would you still take actuarial exams if you get into one of top 10 schools for either MBA or MS FE?
It doesn't make a lot of sense unless you just try to show employer you got too much time on your hand.

as with FE, I will recommend NYU's FE program.
it is close to the job market and it is a top program.
For addition choices, MIT, Cornell, Harvard, and UPenn all have FE programs.

[Grits N Gravy]

http://www.iafe.org/

Here's the link to the International Association of Financial Engineers. It has some useful info on various academic programs. Some would argue that to get a really heavy-duty quantitative job on Wall Street, you need a PhD in math or physics.

You could make a case that either degree could be useful in combination with an ASA or an FSA, but doing them while you're still taking exams probably would show that you have too much time on your hands. The big upside to doing them while you're an actuary is that your employer might be willing to pick up some or all of the cost and you can earn a paycheck in the meantime.

If you're looking to make a drastic career change, it would probably be smarter just to go full time to take advantage of all of the networking opportunities, career services and summer internships.

[Anonymous]

I agree that pursuing a financial-world career, while still writing actuarial exams might not be the best approach. In my situation, however, I can be nearly finished my exams before even going to graduate school (either MBA or MSc in Quant).

I would suspect that this improves my situation, especially because financial cies will (generally) not pay for exams, give study time, etc.

[DW Simpson]

http://actuary.ca/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=879725&postcount=73

My question is do the instructors show the derivation or actually make the students understand it?

Yes, they have to understand. His profs say things like "Qfin is not about memorization; qfin is about derivation. You must be able to take a new instrument, apply Ito's Lemma to stochastic processes for its driving factors, construct a riskless hedge for it, and develop numerical algorithms to solve it." I'm blown away by it. Talk about getting your money's worth. On tests, they have to prove and derive things. They not only have to take courses in numerical algorithms, but they use C++ to implement their pricing / integration routines. The graduates seem to be in high demand. One of the two big mortgage agencies has a hire / training program just for graduates from that program. One of my son's friends, a solid senior who wasn't at the top of the class, just landed an full-time job offer (NY, but still) at $85K. That's not bad at all for a hatchling with a BS in quantitative finance.

[louisdj_KSU]

What kind of jobs does an MS (or BS) in Qaunt. Finance open, and how are they different from actuaries?