How is CFA charter different from Masters in Finance. I read somewhere that the CFA charter is equivalent to a masters. How true is that? And if it is, it is safe to tell others (people from other industries who are not familiar with the term CFA) that you have a equivalent to a masters? If they aren’t, any part-time masters in finance programme that are worth mentioning?
CFA is practical. Master of Finance is more academic. Willy
CFA is also broader in content than most (if not all) Masters in Finance.
So is it right to say that CFA is equivalent to a masters?
In my opinion no. As Willy said, the masters is more academic whereby you spend a huge amount of time research the academic papers and understand the evolution of a concept and become quite familiar with the individual academics. I have only sat L1 of CFA, but it all that was stripped out and it was much more down to business or practical as Willy said. To me, describing the CFA as equivalent to a masters is selling CFA short (no pun).
i think saying the CFA=masters (good program) in finance is selling the masters short…
I think it’d be disingenuous to tell people not familiar with the CFA that you have a equivalent to a masters…it’s clearly not a masters regardless of how difficult it is to obtain. I would say that it is a professional designation given to those who have established themselves in the industry and passed a rigorous set of tests.
From my experience, an MSF is far more quantitative than the CFA. At least at Level 1, the CFA seemed more accounting than anything…
CFA is more of a specialist course with focus on application while Masters of Finance covers a wide array of subjects which are more academic in nature. While CFA is in-depth, Masters in Finance has a relatively broad scope. Compared to any other course like MBA or Masters in Finance, its apt to say that CFA is a foot wide and a mile deep in scope, while other courses are a mile wide and a foot deep.
This might give some more insights: http://www.analystforum.com/121304.shtml