Anyone know if it is any good? Thinking of perhaps a MSc in Finance from there.
What sucks most is that, it’s very hard to find placement statistics of MSc Finance. I’m also searching for a good MSc Finance program for months now, but rarely I find any placement statistics for MS Finance, and it doesn’t makes sense to consider programs solely on their content value in this economy.
Princeton MF program has great placement. Their 2007 Stats were like 100% placement since inception (2001), and median salary of 140.
what exactly is an MSc from “university of london”? it’s kinda like a masters from “university of california” - it matters where you went, UC Berkley, UCLA or UC Riverside, UC Irvine? you have a whole lot of schools within the university of london umbrella. LSE, Kings, UCL are good, Imperial used to be there and is very good. There are crappier schools there too
^Not LSE
LSE is part of the university of london, yes
And competition for places in that program appears to be very, very keen. ------------------------------------------------------- > Princeton MF program has great placement. Their > 2007 Stats were like 100% placement since > inception (2001), and median salary of 140.
I think you’re talking about Cass. I am also looking at an Msc.Fin from there (see my previous posts on the matter). It’s obviously less known than LSE, but from what I gather from repliers they have very specialized programs which may or may not suit you. It also depends a lot on where you want to be after you graduate. It is much more known in London and in the UK than around the world. Here’s hoping we get in!
Hmm…I was looking for something I could do externally/distance education as I live in rural Australia.
It is a reputable university and its been around for 100 years. It is comprised of different school so that matters most but it depends on where you want to work and what the reputation is in your area. Their distance program wouldn’t really have much placement or anyhting like that
bison_foilist Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you’re talking about Cass. I am also > looking at an Msc.Fin from there (see my previous > posts on the matter). > > It’s obviously less known than LSE, but from what > I gather from repliers they have very specialized > programs which may or may not suit you. > > It also depends a lot on where you want to be > after you graduate. It is much more known in > London and in the UK than around the world. > > Here’s hoping we get in! I was also considering Cass earlier but Cass is kinda second tier in London. Now my preference is tilting towards Imperial, course content of imperial is great while cost is nearly same and reputation is up one tier. You might want to have a look at it! Content of LSE and Oxbridge sucks bigtime, more then half of the topics are already covered in CFA and there’s little emphasis on teaching practical concepts. LSE is so much theoretical and expensive while it’s placements stats are not known either. So here;s the tradeoff, Good course decent reputation (Imperial, Cass) vs good reputation bad content (LSE, Oxbridge).
^What about LBS?
^ LBS is super-duper-competitive :-)! People who come there usually had their MBA and lotsa work exp before along with good academic record, don’t stand a chance there right now, may be it’s the LBS MBA rejects who then apply for LBS MS Fin!
Bernanke, are you comparing straight up Msc Fin courses in those colleges? Cass comes into its own for more specialised masters programmes I think. LSE and Oxbridge clearly have great reputations as universities, although they are Johnny-come-lately’s to the world of finance. 10 years ago I’m not sure if they even offered masters course in finance (as distinct from Economics which has long been regarded as a major academic discipline). London Business School arguably has the best reputation as a straight up Msc Fin, although the fees reflect that. Cranfield and Warwick might be worth considering too.
^ I’m just trying to balance different aspects of every course to determine which one will have highest prospects after graduating. Of course all of these differentiate themselves on basis of their quantitative content.
Bernanke, I have just checked M Fin in LBS, and they only require 2 years of relevant experience (which is not only finance directly, but any related field, “corporate law, finance journalism or IT in a financial institution”). Over 3.5 GPA is preferable, and average GMAT is 700. It’s just 1 year program, so the cost is not that high overall, as 2year MBA. If I had MBA, I wouldn’t do this program. But the average reported salaries for graduates are on par with MBAs. http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/programmes/London_Business_School_MiF2009_Employment_Report.pdf
Valores Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bernanke, > I have just checked M Fin in LBS, and they only > require 2 years of relevant experience (which is > not only finance directly, but any related field, > “corporate law, finance journalism or IT in a > financial institution”). Over 3.5 GPA is > preferable, and average GMAT is 700. It’s just 1 > year program, so the cost is not that high > overall, as 2year MBA. > If I had MBA, I wouldn’t do this program. But the > average reported salaries for graduates are on par > with MBAs. > > http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/programmes/ > London_Business_School_MiF2009_Employment_Report.p > df Ya, but I’m just 1 year out of school, gotta wait for 1 more year at least :(. GMAT isn’t a problem, 750+ doesn’t sound big deal to me, not bragging anything here, I’m just lil bit fortunate here because of my background. But… college time was sooo much fun, and that’s what dragging my profile, bad GPA although top school. I’m working in finance, that’s the only respite. I don’t know how much importance LBS gives to GPA but still I’m kinda skeptical about my chances in LBS without 4-5 yrs of work exp.