Masters at different university or stay here?

[jamesa00789]

So I am currently studying BSc Physics. I am going to study MSc Financial Mathematics. But what I want to know if it looks bad if I have a masters and a bachelors from the same university on my CV rather than having two universities? i.e. will it look better to employers if I have done a masters degree at a different university.

The universities I will be applying to have about the same rank. But the thing is, I really enjoy it where I am at now and the tuition fee is a 3rd of the price compared to the different university I'm thinking of applying to.

Any help would be grand :)

 

[Choppy]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Going to a different school for your MSc degree has the advantage of exposing you to different professors and teaching styles and, to some extent, different philosophies. That's why it can be encouraged at times.

I wouldn't pay triple simply to have that on my CV.

 

[foxfyr]

The irony is that, except in rare instances, you will find after a few years in the marketplace, that the name on your diploma matters little. The diploma becomes akin to a driver's license, it indicates that you had the discipline and wherewithal to see a task to completion. But when was the last time anyone asked what the score was on your driver's license or in which city it was completed?

And to add to the issue, for the most part, assuming you select an accredited program, the difference in what is taught is not that great - despite the names and reputations of the professors.

The key differentiation and real advantage between the 'name' schools and others is generally greater in the networking.

In fact, you may find in a 'smaller' program that you actually have much more 1:1 contact time with the professors than in the larger 'name' school programs. And in this respect, the close personal and mentoring relationships can prove invaluable. Likewise, in a slightly different manner, a primary advantage that the 'name' programs offer is also in the networking.

For instance, in a general program at a general school, you should expect to be adequately exposed to the subject matter. Whereas at a 'name' school you will also be adequately exposed to the subject matter (although there is an increased probability of interacting 1:1 with a greater number of grad assistants - which is not an advantage). But in the name program, the odds are increased that you will meet a greater number of individuals with whom the advantage of future networking opportunities is increased.

To provide a simplified simplified example intended to illustrate the concept - if not the literal reality ...the primary difference between going to Harvard business school and Humpty Dumpty graduate business school is not so much in the accounting or finance courses - they will be essentially the same. What is different is that as an active participant in Harvard, you will graduate with, and be able to call up on a first name basis, a much greater number of individuals who will be pathed into leadership positions in the the top 100 firms. And this can be of immense strategic benefit over the span of one's career.

And as I am sure someone will cite some individual in some major company who is an exception, nevertheless, the practical benefits and the overall statistics bear this out. Nor am I suggesting that one is necessarily better than the other! But one would do well to understand the associated dynamics that may define much of the total differences in the programs.

So, while I am not pushing the name programs, one should at least be aware of the additional strengths and weakness of the various programs beyond simple academics, and the potential significant intangible benefits of the 'name' programs that lie outside of the academics that lead some to make the substantial investment to attend.

 

[jamesa00789]

Thanks for your replies. From what I understand is that it doesn't actually matter too much. I am thinking of applying for this course: http://business.leeds.ac.uk/masters/masters-programmes/msc-financial-mathematics/ but the tuition fee is a whopping £9000, whereas if I stay at my current university it is £3500. And my parents are going to be paying for either one... so I do feel a bit bad about that.

But part of me wants to go explore, try new things and enter the unknown. But at the same time I love it where I already am! I am so confused.

Thanks for your help guys.

 

[twofish-quant]

So I am currently studying BSc Physics. I am going to study MSc Financial Mathematics. But what I want to know if it looks bad if I have a masters and a bachelors from the same university on my CV rather than having two universities? i.e. will it look better to employers if I have done a masters degree at a different university.

Employers don't care much about this. However, the big thing that you will want is a university with good career services, so talk to recent alumni and see where they end up.

Personally I tend to recommend against people getting masters in financial mathematics. It's too mathematical for finance, and not mathematical enough for mathematics.

 

[twofish-quant]

What is different is that as an active participant in Harvard, you will graduate with, and be able to call up on a first name basis, a much greater number of individuals who will be pathed into leadership positions in the the top 100 firms. And this can be of immense strategic benefit over the span of one's career.

But you do have to be careful. One thing that you'll find in some schools is that if you get a degree from department A, you won't be able to take advantage of networks in department B. This can be a particular problem with financial mathematics, since you may find (as in my case at UT Austin) that the B-school has excellent networking that is not available to science students.

So, while I am not pushing the name programs, one should at least be aware of the additional strengths and weakness of the various programs beyond simple academics, and the potential significant intangible benefits of the 'name' programs that lie outside of the academics that lead some to make the substantial investment to attend.

But I've found that there is a lot of bait and switch that happens, and sometimes a "name school" doesn't have that many networks whereas a "no-name school" has plenty of them. The other thing is that if you want to succeed in business, you just can't take what's given. If your school doesn't have networks, then it's your responsibility to create them.

 

[foxfyr]

The real networking advantage in the 'name' schools is between classmates - as they will ultimately be colleagues in the business world. And with some of the more 'elite' schools' this network among classmates you come to know firsthand and also among the associated alumni which the school affiliation offers by virtue of being a graduate can indeed be substantial.

And a substantial amount of these acquaintances are established outside the classroom through social organizations and functions if one actively avails themselves of all of the resources available.

 

[twofish-quant]

The real networking advantage in the 'name' schools is between classmates - as they will ultimately be colleagues in the business world. And with some of the more 'elite' schools' this network among classmates you come to know firsthand and also among the associated alumni which the school affiliation offers by virtue of being a graduate can indeed be substantial.

On the other hand, there are other ways of networking. The business school at Harvard has conferences all of the time, so just make up some business cards, pay the registration fee, buy plane tickets, and show up.

One reason people from Harvard do well is that the place teaches you to be a bit arrogant. If you graduate from a bottom school, and you don't get the job, then you stop swinging at the ball. Something that I have seen with Harvard people is that if they get rejected then *obviously* the people that rejected them were incompetent so they keep swinging.

The other thing that you get from Harvard is information. If you know someone that has gotten a job at a major bank, then you start to think that you can do it too,

 

[twofish-quant]

What is different is that as an active participant in Harvard, you will graduate with, and be able to call up on a first name basis, a much greater number of individuals who will be pathed into leadership positions in the the top 100 firms. And this can be of immense strategic benefit over the span of one's career.

But before you put down cash money, you really need to talk with recent alumni to see how good the networks really are. I do know of one situation in which the MFE graduates from a big name school had huge problems getting jobs last year, whereas the MFE graduates of another school that no one really heard of, didn't, and that was because the career services people at the other school did more and better work. PM me and I'll name names.

The misconception that people have is that people will see on your resume that you went to Harvard, and kiss your feet, which isn't how things work. What going to Harvard gets you is the e-mail address to send your resume to, and a dedicated staff of people that goes out and actively markets Harvard to big firms. But Ivy Leagues can screw up. One problem with MFE programs is that they often are run from the mathematics and engineering departments and often (and University of Texas at Austin is one place where this does happen), the business school will give the cold shoulder to science people. If you get a degree from the Harvard Extension School, then the B-school people will ignore you.

Also there is culture. MIT, for example, teaches you to think in a certain way, and to hate MIT and elitism, which is quite useful in business. One irony here is that MIT graduates tend to be hired for quantitative finance jobs, even though MIT really stinks at the type of mathematical finance that you find in investment banks, and it does not offer a degree in mathematical finance.

(Andrew Lo's group does have really good research in econometric hedge-fund type mathematical finance but that is something different.)