Business Analytics (UCD), Quantitative Finance (UCD) or MSc in Finance in TCD??

dr_funkenstein

Hey there

I've been working for 4 years now in science after graduating with a 1:1degree in physics. I'm out of work now and looking for a change of career. I'm finding it hard though to break in business, particulary with everything that is happening now!!

I'm considering doing a postgrad/MSc to boost my CV and give me more options. I'm interested in analyst roles but I'm not exactly sure what type etc.
Upon reading the curriculum for these courses, they sound good to me. But I'm also worried how relevant they are now that everything is going to pot

Basically.. I'm looking for a bit of guidance What do people think of those three courses? And which would you roughly think are suitable for me? (as I've no real finance experience).

Thanks for your help!!

graduate

The MSc in Business Analytics doesn't require any experience in Finance for sure. It was the Master of Management Science and these graduates ended up in a number of sectors, not just a narrowly defined area of finance, although some do work in finance. Sure there were some lucrative finance jobs, but business also has a broader set of interesting quantitative needs. And the MSc in Analytics is HEA funded, so is cheaper!

JDLK

Ever considered an MBA? (Master of Business Adminisatration) Great course for getting into business for non business people, introductions to finance etc and great combination of people from different disciplines- your physics education and science professional experience would be a good addition to any MBA class which seeks diversity- I really think you should check it out.

Trinity and UCD both run internationally respected MBA's

dr_funkenstein

Hey!

Thanks for the replies so far. Mmm.. never really considered an MBA due to the cost of the thing! €28,500 (2008-2009) for EU and International students in TCD :eek:

The business analytics course does sound appealing as it seems to be applying some methods I've probably used before in the past to more real life problems. It seems to have a bit more of a broader scope than the other two. Which can be both good and bad. One of the things I didn't like about my degree is that its SO broad. People tell you you can apply it to alot of different roles/sectors, but in reality you need to be heavily trained into them (but I guess thats the same with most graduates!!).

Has anyone done it or know someone that has/is?

Also, do you automatically apply for the reduced fees from the NDP if you have been working and are going back to college?

Thanks again for yer help

mikemac

Imo, the Quantitative Finance has a great rep and and with your degree you have a basis already.
Unfortunatly it's a lousy time for hiring in finance but realy you've a great chance of getting a good job with your background.

Open University do an MBA too and you could stay working.

Also if you want to make in it finance, the CFA is where it's at!
http://www.cfainstitute.org/
Well finance is huge but it's for the investment side.

Sorry, these are part-time courses and you're asking about full-time
We don't you giving up work and becoming a scrounging student :P

ucdperson

The MBA is a different beast than these MSc courses. In the MSc courses you are dealing with techniques for business problem solving using mathematics and programming in the case of the MSc in Business Analytics. The MBA is concerned with general management and is of most use to people with business experience. Four years work experience might just about get you into an MBA but it would be of greater benefit to someone with 10 years experience.

Also, do you automatically apply for the reduced fees from the NDP if you have been working and are going back to college?

The NDP subsidise courses, e.g. MSc in Business Analytics, you then pay a reduced fee, last year €1750. No need to apply for anything other than the course. Part-time students can also avail of this reduced fee, but they pay €1750 for each of two years.

see also
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055333456&highlight=business+analytics

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055338234&highlight=quantitative+finance

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055338232&highlight=quantitative+finance

dr_funkenstein

Hmm.. definitely food for thought.. especially from the 3 older threads posted (thanks ucdperson!).

I don't want to become way too specialised too quickly, as that is part of my problem with science :rolleyes: .. So to be honest, after all the reading today, it kinda feels like its between the Business Analytics in UCD and Finance in TCD. Coming from my background, the analytics course does seem to be more suitable for what I am after (modelling, methods, etc).

If I did go through with it, I would be 28 finishing. I'm also a bit concerned whether thats a bit old to try to get a foothold in an analytical role.

Any more opinions?

blucey

dr_funkenstein wrote: »

Hmm.. definitely food for thought.. especially from the 3 older threads posted (thanks ucdperson!).

I don't want to become way too specialised too quickly, as that is part of my problem with science :rolleyes: .. So to be honest, after all the reading today, it kinda feels like its between the Business Analytics in UCD and Finance in TCD. Coming from my background, the analytics course does seem to be more suitable for what I am after (modelling, methods, etc).

If I did go through with it, I would be 28 finishing. I'm also a bit concerned whether thats a bit old to try to get a foothold in an analytical role.

Any more opinions?

Talk to the directors - talk to the students also. Feel free to PM me ( Msc TCD - which has a CFA linkage btw...)

ucdperson

f I did go through with it, I would be 28 finishing. I'm also a bit concerned whether thats a bit old to try to get a foothold in an analytical role.

Analytics requires a combination of quantitative techniques and judgement. Some experience of work and life is generally of benefit to people doing a MSc and is of interest to employers.

Frank007

If you are worried about the cost of an MBA you can study in Holland for a fraction of the price, a normal masters cost around1.5k obviously an MBA will be a bit more but it is much better value for money than here

ardmacha

The MBA is a different beast than these MSc courses.

If you are worried about the cost of an MBA

These courses are not interchangeable with an MBA, either you want one or the other. You might take some account of cost when comparing the MScs but an MBA is different.

Mikel

If you're looking for an analytical/ problem solving role then an MBA is not what you want, neither is a CFA for that matter.
The Bus Analytics is broader but (looks) very practical. Flexibility in your career could be very important.

The MSC in Quant Finance is a strange one. A few years ago they made a big deal about going to 2 yrs full time to teach what was required, now it's quietly gone back to one.
The curriculum doesn't look very impressive, it's a halfway house between an MBS in Finance and a more quantitative qualification.
It doesn't mention any coding, and for some reason they STILL have that pointless course on GA and neural nets. Anyone would think that a lecturer had published a book on the subject and so it is an obligation to teach it on the course.

I don't know anything about the TCD course, but again the course outline looks pretty soft with little hard analysis. Maybe someone here has personal experience of the course

dr_funkenstein

Hey!

Thanks again for the replies. I do prefer the curriculum for the analytics course, and like you say, seems a bit more practical with the heavy element of java in it. I am going to apply for that course and a similar MSc in Operational Research in england, I *think* its the sort of MSc's I'm looking for.

Cheers all the for advice

graduate

Anyone would think that a lecturer had published a book on the subject and so it is an obligation to teach it on the course.

Whatever about the detailed content, it never any harm to have the world authority on the subject actually teaching a course rather than someone lecturing who is one chapter ahead in someone else's book.

I do prefer the curriculum for the analytics course, and like you say, seems a bit more practical with the heavy element of java in it.

the Analytics MSc is the job if you actually want to know how to program solutions rather than just talk about them.

Mikel

graduate wrote: »

Whatever about the detailed content, it never any harm to have the world authority on the subject actually teaching a course rather than someone lecturing who is one chapter ahead in someone else's book.

That depends on what is taught being relevant, they have been teaching that particular course for donkeys years now, and I would question it's relevance to be honest. I would say it's existence is a function of the fact the lecturer is there, rather than being of any practical benefit

blucey

Mikel wrote: »

If you're looking for an analytical/ problem solving role then an MBA is not what you want, neither is a CFA for that matter.
The Bus Analytics is broader but (looks) very practical. Flexibility in your career could be very important.

The MSC in Quant Finance is a strange one. A few years ago they made a big deal about going to 2 yrs full time to teach what was required, now it's quietly gone back to one.
The curriculum doesn't look very impressive, it's a halfway house between an MBS in Finance and a more quantitative qualification.
It doesn't mention any coding, and for some reason they STILL have that pointless course on GA and neural nets. Anyone would think that a lecturer had published a book on the subject and so it is an obligation to teach it on the course.

I don't know anything about the TCD course, but again the course outline looks pretty soft with little hard analysis. Maybe someone here has personal experience of the course

Hmm... Define "hard" - without it being the same as "mathematically intensive"...

Mikel

blucey wrote: »

Hmm... Define "hard" - without it being the same as "mathematically intensive"...

Doesn't necessarily have to be mathematically intensive, but it has to be practical, applicable, hands on, useful...I'm running out of synonyms..
I'm just working off the course descriptions, but most of them seem very discursive.
eg
Data Analysis:
* Exploring financial data and databases
* The role of inference in finance and financial decision making
* Choosing an appropriate analytic and evaluatory package
* The central importance of the time value of money.
* Pro and cons of panel versus time series analysis in finance

Equity & Fixed Income:
* The overlooked role and importance of debt
* Corporate and sovereign debt taxonomical characteristics
* Debt yield concepts and their relation to other financial flows
* Corporate sensitivities
* The importance of forecast terminal values
* The role of company strategy and economic conditions

Even Econometrics which is a technical subject seems to be treated in a soft essay question type way:
* Financial econometrics as an art form as well as a skill
* The limits to modeling
* The influence of engineering and signal analysis on modern financial econometrics
* Model choice and model management

The most important course on that list should be Pricing Derivative Securities:
* Contingent claims analysis as an underlying theme
* Limits to modeling
* Breaking down complex instruments into simpler contingent claims
* Growth in trading and trading mechanisms for derivatives

That's not what an analytical person should be learning. There's nothing practical in it. If you look for a job in the field of pricing derivatives and all you can do is list off pros and cons and discuss 'themes' you're not of any use to anyone.
Where is the modelling, pricing, coding, implementing?
There is nothing remotely quantitative in it from what I can see

blucey

Mikel wrote: »

Doesn't necessarily have to be mathematically intensive, but it has to be practical, applicable, hands on, useful...I'm running out of synonyms..
I'm just working off the course descriptions, but most of them seem very discursive.
eg
That's not what an analytical person should be learning. There's nothing practical in it. If you look for a job in the field of pricing derivatives and all you can do is list off pros and cons and discuss 'themes' you're not of any use to anyone.
Where is the modelling, pricing, coding, implementing?
There is nothing remotely quantitative in it from what I can see

..then you should have done a msc in financial math...its a different course. the modelling, coding and implementing is ....a course in computational finance. Its like saying "Aha, you teach oranges. Well, where is the lemon, eh, tell me, come on? Its not there, is it? " Well, no, its not.
Tell you what. I will send you the exams, you take them and tell me how you get on!

Mikel

blucey wrote: »

..then you should have done a msc in financial math...its a different course. the modelling, coding and implementing is ....a course in computational finance. Its like saying "Aha, you teach oranges. Well, where is the lemon, eh, tell me, come on? Its not there, is it? " Well, no, its not.
Tell you what. I will send you the exams, you take them and tell me how you get on!

Oh dear, who rattled your cage?
Er, someone asked for an opinion on a couple of courses, and I gave my opinion based on the outlines. What's your problem?

The person asking talked about analytical skills and problem solving, and I perused the TCD course in that context.
To be honest I was being kind, it looks like another cookie cutter masters course (Msc LOL), probably given by people who don't have any real experience in the subject.
There is nothing there that you could not learn yourself by picking up a textbook or googling for lecture notes

12.5k????? ****ing rip off.

Tell you what. I will send you the exams, you take them and tell me how you get on!

Why don't you upload one then? Give us all a laugh

mikemac

Eh, I've not read Page 2 but I did post on Page 1
Let me just say the OP is looking at a Finance course so the CFA is where it's at!

Study hard and pass my friend

Mikel

micmclo wrote: »

Let me just say the OP is looking at a Finance course so the CFA is where it's at!

Why is the CFA 'where it's at'?

Mikel

micmclo wrote: »

Charted Financial Analyst
More respected than any masters from UCD or hell any MBA from Ireland.
It's a serious and worthwhile qualification from people who want to be taken seriously.

Yeah I know what CFA stands for. But that statement is just plain false.
The CFA is basically an undergraduate qualification.
'Want to be taken seriously' LOL

It has been around in the states for 30 - 40 years because iirc equity analysts and like were required to have it.
It's respected in the context of what it is, but it's value in Ireland or the UK is questionable.

It has become more popular here recently, not because of any inherent value, but because of the 'monkey see monkey do' attitude some people have.

If you are an engineer looking for a job in finance, it would have a value. If you are an equity analyst it would have a value (not for the curriculum, you should know that already, but for the name recognition if you want to change job).

The CFA has no difficult content, but has an enormous volume, which a lot of people underestimate. I believe the pass rate here is one of the lowest.

But if you walk into a job interview for any kind of analytical role (not equity analyst, that's not really analytical) and say you have the CFA they will shrug their shoulders and think 'So what?'

Getting employed in a bank or similar is about two things:
What can you do?
What can you learn to do quickly?

The CFA won't teach you to do anything.

The OP didn't just mention finance, but also problem solving and analysis.
Inherently practical things, the CFA is not practical.

Undergraduates are sold a lot of bunkum, and they are naive and inexperienced so they tend to fall for it.
If you really want to do a CFA either get a job and pay for it yourself or get your employer to pay for it. I think it's a few hundred dollars.

Don't cost yourself a years salary (say 30k) plus 12.5k (which is incredibly overpriced) to get the same qualification.

Say you get a job interview after your 'Msc'

'So tell me about the Msc you did'

'Oh, it's based on the CFA'

'So, you have the CFA?'

'No, but the course covers a lot of the same material'

What signal does that send to any potential employer?

Masters degrees in Finance are mostly useless, they are money spinners for universities, easy money.

If you want to learn, read a book

DJDC

If you to be at the forefront of pricing/developing derivatives, i.e. become a front office quant you have to be mega mega smart at Maths. Ideally do the Part III exams at cambridge or have a Phd from the big 4 for maths in the UK....imperial,warwick and oxbridge.However for most people that's just not going happen so I don't know what you are trying to advocate Mikel?

To merely implement/use derivatives i.e structuring,exotic trading a good first class honours from a top uni in maths should be ok. Its increasingly common that people have a MSc in Financial Maths, ideally from LSE, Warwick or Oxbridge though.

And if you think that by reading a few books you can learn all there is to know about derivatives pricing, then its quite obvious you have 0 experience of working in the industry(I'm not talking bout some monkey admin role in the IFSC here).Nearly all the FO quants in LDN/SGP and NYC are PhD's with the remaining having highly numerical masters and various postgraduates.

For anyone interested go to www.wilmott.com Get some top information there from people in the industry.

Mikel

DJDC wrote: »

If you to be at the forefront of pricing/developing derivatives, i.e. become a front office quant you have to be mega mega smart at Maths. Ideally do the Part III exams at cambridge or have a Phd from the big 4 for maths in the UK....imperial,warwick and oxbridge.However for most people that's just not going happen s

Where did I mention Front Office quants?
Did you even read the thread?

The OP didn't ask about quant roles, but asked about problem solving and anaytical roles.
The point I was making about the TCD course was that it was 'soft', ie no 'hard analysis'.
The point I was making about the CFA was that it doesn't teach you to do anything, it's really just a survey of basic finance.
Hence it doesn't really add value if you want to be analytical.

By the way, do you think every front office quant has a phd from 'imperial,warwick and oxbridge'?
and the Tripos won't qualify you for any roles.........

To merely implement/use derivatives i.e structuring,exotic trading a good first class honours from a top uni in maths should be ok. Its increasingly common that people have a MSc in Financial Maths, ideally from LSE, Warwick or Oxbridge though.

False.
Do all the people who 'implement' have a 'good first class honours from a top uni in maths'? Not even close.

And if you think that by reading a few books you can learn all there is to know about derivatives pricing, then its quite obvious you have 0 experience of working in the industry(I'm not talking bout some monkey admin role in the IFSC here).Nearly all the FO quants in LDN/SGP and NYC are PhD's with the remaining having highly numerical masters and various postgraduates.

I didn't say by reading a few books you can learn all there is to know about derivatives pricing
I said that anything that is on the CFA could be learned by reading a book

I don't know what you are trying to advocate Mikel?

Reading posts properly for a start :rolleyes:

How much 'quant' or 'implementing' experience do you have btw?
Or are you just reeling off what you remember from people posting on Wilmott?

blucey

Mikel wrote: »

Yeah I know what CFA stands for. But that statement is just plain false.
The CFA is basically an undergraduate qualification.
'Want to be taken seriously' LOL

It has been around in the states for 30 - 40 years because iirc equity analysts and like were required to have it.
It's respected in the context of what it is, but it's value in Ireland or the UK is questionable.

It has become more popular here recently, not because of any inherent value, but because of the 'monkey see monkey do' attitude some people have.

If you are an engineer looking for a job in finance, it would have a value. If you are an equity analyst it would have a value (not for the curriculum, you should know that already, but for the name recognition if you want to change job).

The CFA has no difficult content, but has an enormous volume, which a lot of people underestimate. I believe the pass rate here is one of the lowest.

But if you walk into a job interview for any kind of analytical role (not equity analyst, that's not really analytical) and say you have the CFA they will shrug their shoulders and think 'So what?'

Getting employed in a bank or similar is about two things:
What can you do?
What can you learn to do quickly?

The CFA won't teach you to do anything.

The OP didn't just mention finance, but also problem solving and analysis.
Inherently practical things, the CFA is not practical.

Undergraduates are sold a lot of bunkum, and they are naive and inexperienced so they tend to fall for it.
If you really want to do a CFA either get a job and pay for it yourself or get your employer to pay for it. I think it's a few hundred dollars.

Don't cost yourself a years salary (say 30k) plus 12.5k (which is incredibly overpriced) to get the same qualification.

Say you get a job interview after your 'Msc'

'So tell me about the Msc you did'

'Oh, it's based on the CFA'

'So, you have the CFA?'

'No, but the course covers a lot of the same material'

What signal does that send to any potential employer?

Masters degrees in Finance are mostly useless, they are money spinners for universities, easy money.

If you want to learn, read a book

Couple of points
a) The CFA pass rate in ireland is actually one of the highest in the world....
b) CFA an undergrad qualification....well, thats an opinion, a false one imho but...
c) Do you have a clue re the nature of the relationship between the CFA institute and the university program partners, coverage of courses etc?
d) As others have said, if reading was all that was required, why have any universities? I think you fetish (your definition of ) analytical skills of a particular kind and dont really comprehend what other kinds of analytical skills exist.

Red Alert

Great discussion folks but can we keep the civility up!

Mikel

blucey wrote: »

Couple of points
a) The CFA pass rate in ireland is actually one of the highest in the world

Do your numbers include everyone registered or just those who show up?
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2007/03/11/story21756.asp

Almost 90 per cent of the financial analysts who have taken the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) exams in Ireland over the last five years have failed them or not completed them.

Over the past five years, 1,000 people have attempted the CFA exams, but only 135 people working in the industry have obtained the CFA qualification, according to Joe Kavanagh, president of the Society of Investment Analysts in Ireland (SIAI).

Kavanagh said the first two exams had a pass rate of 40 per cent. He said that, on average, 20 per cent of applicants to the programme failed to show up for the first exam.

from the CFA website:
http://www.cfainstitute.org/cfaprog/faq/faqs_candidates.html

Do the pass/fail numbers published by CFA Institute include all the registered candidates or just the ones who took the exam?
The pass rates include only those candidates who actually took the exams. The numbers do not include no-show candidates or those who withdrew.

b) CFA an undergrad qualification....well, thats an opinion, a false one imho but...

Let's see:

CFA Candidate Body of Knowledge (CBOK)

I. Ethical and Professional Standards

A. Professional Standards of Practice
B. Ethical Practices

II. Quantitative Methods

A. Time Value of Money
B. Probability
C. Probability Distributions and Descriptive Statistics
D. Sampling and Estimation
E. Hypothesis Testing
F. Correlation Analysis and Regression
G. Time Series Analysis
H. Simulation Analysis
I. Technical Analysis

III. Economics

A. Market Forces of Supply and Demand
B. The Firm and Industry Organization
C. Measuring National Income and Growth
D. Business Cycles
E. The Monetary System
F. Inflation
G. International Trade and Capital Flows
H. Currency Exchange Rates
I. Monetary and Fiscal Policy
J. Economic Growth and Development
K. Effects of Government Regulation
L. Impact of Economic Factors on Investment Markets

IV. Financial Reporting and Analysis

A. Financial Reporting System (IFRS and GAAP)
B. Principal Financial Statements
C. Financial Reporting Quality
D. Analysis of Inventories
E. Analysis of Long-Lived Assets
F. Analysis of Taxes
G. Analysis of Debt
H. Analysis of Off-Balance-Sheet Assets and Liabilities
I. Analysis of Pensions, Stock Compensation, and Other Employee Benefits
J. Analysis of Inter-Corporate Investments
K. Analysis of Business Combinations
L. Analysis of Global Operations
M. Ratio and Financial Analysis

V. Corporate Finance
A. Corporate Governance
B. Dividend Policy
C. Capital Investment Decisions
D. Business and Financial Risk
E. Long-Term Financial Policy
F. Short-Term Financial Policy
G. Mergers and Acquisitions and Corporate Restructuring

VI. Equity Investments
A. Types of Equity Securities and their Characteristics
B. Equity Markets: Characteristics, Institutions, and Benchmarks
C. Fundamental Analysis (Sector, Industry, Company) and the Valuation of Individual Equity Securities
D. Equity Market Valuation and Return Analysis
E. Special Applications of Fundamental Analysis (Residual Earnings)
F. Equity of Hybrid Investment Vehicles

VII. Fixed Income
A. Types of Fixed-Income Securities and their Characteristics
B. Fixed-Income Markets: Characteristics, Institutions, and Benchmarks
C. Fixed-Income Valuation (Sector, Industry, Company) and Return Analysis
D. Term Structure Determination and Yield Spreads
E. Analysis of Interest Rate Risk
F. Analysis of Credit Risk
G. Valuing Bonds with Embedded Options
H. Structured Products

VIII. Derivatives
A. Types of Derivative Instruments and their Characteristics
B. Forward Markets and Instruments
C. Futures Markets and Instruments
D. Options Markets and Instruments
E. Swaps Markets and Instruments
F. Credit Derivatives Markets and Instruments

IX. Alternative Investments
A. Types of Alternative Investments and their Characteristics
B. Real Estate
C. Private Equity/Venture Capital
D. Hedge Funds
E. Closely-held Companies and Inactively Traded Securities
F. Distressed Securities/Bankruptcies
G. Commodities
H. Tangible Assets with Low Liquidity

X. Portfolio Management and Wealth Planning
A. Portfolio Concepts
B. Management of Individual/Family Investor Portfolios
C. Management of Institutional Investor Portfolios
D. Pension Plans and Employee Benefit Funds
E. Investment Manager Selection
F. Other Institutional Investors
G. Mutual Funds, Pooled Funds, and ETFs
H. Economic Analysis and Setting Capital Market Expectations
I. Tax Efficiency
J. Asset Allocation (including Currency Overlay)
K. Portfolio Construction and Revision
L. Equity Portfolio Management Strategies
M. Fixed-Income Portfolio Management Strategies
N. Alternative Investments Management Strategies
O. Risk Management
P. Execution of Portfolio Decisions (Trading)
Q. Performance Evaluation
R. Presentation of Performance Results

I have an undergrad business degree, we covered II, III, IV, V, most of VI and VII, and also VIII
and some of IX (in a 3 year degree)

d) As others have said, if reading was all that was required, why have any universities? I think you fetish (your definition of ) analytical skills of a particular kind and dont really comprehend what other kinds of analytical skills exist.

A couple of things here:
What is on that curriculum that I could not get from a relatively basic textbook?
How about the Msc? What value does paying 12.5k add?
How do you extrapolate my opinion of this course to universities in general?
I don't 'fetish' any kind of skill, I was assessing the outline of the course in the context of what the OP was asking about.
But you haven't dealt with that at all.

How can anyone justify attending a course for a year, paying the opportunity cost and the exorbitant fees, and then look for a job with their so called financial skills, when the course is based around a qualification which costs a fraction of that?
Anyone who does that doesn't understand finance.

The problem is that universities realised that they can cobble together a few courses from undergrad business or economics, maybe throw in a maths or computing class or two, a couple of generic classes and they can charge big money for it.

blucey

Ok - you clearly have a hard on for this course. Why, I let the readers decide.

One comment - if youur university covered, to the level (not the topic) of the CFA the issues you suggested, its pretty bloody unique. Again, take a look at the CFA programme partners site and note the few universities that are so doing, at undergrad level. Note that the sites a few weeks behind.

you dont rate the MSc in TCD - fine. You love the MSc in Analytics in UCD - great : have you done either or are you talking "ex catherdra"? Have you talked to anyone on either? Have you talked to industry re either? Opinion is fine but we all have them. You however seem to have a bit of an agenda - apologies if I am wrong. What is your connection if any with UCD?

Re the CFA : as of en 2008 the passthrough rate from year one to year three in Ireland was amongst the highest of all in the world. Thats those that start at level 1 and get through level 3 in one go. But, if you think its sh*te, and the TCD MSc is sh*te, fine, again opinion. Tell me , is it the MSc title you object to or the CFA link? If its the CFA link, do you also rubbish the MBS in Finance in UCD or the MAF in Macquarie? If its the MSc do you rubbish the MSc in Finance at LBS? just asking.....

DJDC

Mikel, the vitriol with which you attack is rather pathetic. If you want to disagree about things that's not issue but I am not going to waste my time argueing with a schizophrenic tit. I am genuinely trying to figure out what you are trying to suggest by your rambling posts? Are you honestly suggesting people seeking a career in quantatitive finance should avoid a MSc or Phd and just try read up on books.

Yes I have experience working in London on a structuring desk for a major player. I know plenty of quants, traders and structurers.And by and large they fit into most of the rather generalised boxes I laid out above.

Mikel

Interesting how your thought process works, every time someone questions 'your' course you have an emotional reaction rather than engaging with what they are actually saying, and accuse them of having an agenda.

I have a 'hard on' for a particular course?
No actually, it's just that I read what the OP said and looked at the outlines on the links.

I gave my opinions accordingly, based on my own experience.
When asked to justify those opinions I've given clear reasons based on the information they provide.

I don't 'love' the course in UCD, it looks useful in terms of applicability and at first glance it may offer value for money, something which no one could say about the TCD course.

I haven't done any of those courses (nor would I), I have no connection to any of them, but I do have a lot of experience working in the area.
The number of people I see doing the CFA who don't know what it is for, and feel the need to do it because everyone else is I find staggering.

My agenda, if I have one, is I don't like the recent trend in universities of throwing together a 1 year course in finance, which like I say you could learn yourself, market it as being at the 'cutting edge' and slapping an enormous price tag on it.

Where is the value for money?
The irony of finance graduates paying probably 40k or so and costing themselves a year's experience in order to learn bog standard material is incredible.
They obviously don't understand the concept of NPV.

I can't see from the course outline at UCD and what they do under the heading of 'Derivatives' for example. But if it's along the same lines as the discursive treatment the TCD outline gives, then yes, it's in the same category.

On the subject of it being an Msc, I don't know what criteria universities use. But I took the liberty of looking at your previous posts on the subject:
Here you're comparing the MBS to the Msc

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=55968905#post55968905

Its an MBS. The MSc, any MSc in finance, is or should be designed from the ground up as a specialist degree in finance. As the poster says, its a bit more specialised. It is also a world recognized brand whereas the MBS is more local based.
C) Most MSc's including TCD's, do have a fair degree of potential to be as specialist or as general as you wish. We have tracks that are quanty or non quanty, to put it crudely

You seem to be saying the Msc is MORE specialised than the MBS, which is hard to believe, again based on your outline.
You mention tracks that are 'quanty'. Granted you're not saying they are 'quant', but you're implying that they are leaning in that direction at least a little.
What tracks are they?

If you still don't get my point....
How much does it cost to do an Msc or similar in maths or engineering or Comp Sci in Trinity?
Probably half the one in finance.
Of course TCD are not unique in this regard, all the universities are the same.
And like I said, undergrads don't know any better

Mikel

DJDC wrote: »

Mikel, the vitriol with which you attack is rather pathetic. If you want to disagree about things that's not issue but I am not going to waste my time argueing with a schizophrenic tit. I am genuinely trying to figure out what you are trying to suggest by your rambling posts? Are you honestly suggesting people seeking a career in quantatitive finance should avoid a MSc or Phd and just try read up on books.

Yes I have experience working in London on a structuring desk for a major player. I know plenty of quants, traders and structurers.And by and large they fit into most of the rather generalised boxes I laid out above.

Vitriol? Have you an example?

are you honestly suggesting people seeking a career in quantatitive finance should avoid a MSc or Phd and just try read up on books

1. We were not talking about quant finance.
2. I said in an earlier post that when I mentioned reading books I was talking about the CFA.

So to sum up...
I am 'attacking' with 'vitriol'
I am 'pathetic'
I am a 'schizophrenic tit'

Good contribution.