Juniorstructurer: MSc people are usually people who failed to get into the graduate programme with the BSc. The MSc essentially provides the candidate a 2nd chance. In reality there is very little difference between a BSc and MSc candidate when it comes to the realities of working.That is simply wrong.JS is presumably thinking of other aspects of banking or indeed other industries where that can be true.Most quantish jobs take MSc as an absolute minimum, some require PhDs.It is pretty rate to get in as a quant with just a BSc. There exist many quants at that level, but you need to understand that they entered this line of work when things were different.Some people get into quant/developer positions based upon a BSc, but you have to be pretty good for that to work in this market.Starting salaries for Msc's are the same as BSc's so around £35K basicThat's not true either.It is the case that many MSc do start at roughly the same base salary as BSc, but the average for MSc is markedly higher. That has two components, again some of the better jobs are reserved for >= MSc, and some firms pay MSc better.An MSc or CQF has almost inevitably a positive net present value expectation. The variance is of course pretty high, and MaxCohen is right that the options you choose do significantly affect your market price.JS was nearly right about base salaries being a smaller % of senior pay, but...Things are changing, which matters if you are making decisions based upon the market from 2-30 years from now.At many firms base pay is increasing radically as a % of total compensation, UBS is a good example of this, part of a significant change in many firms.It is very hard to work out what the (roughly) stable equilibrium will be. From what banks tell me, we will have a pay environment where some firms pay base with small bonus, and some the reverse, and some in between.Some firms will have opaque and questionable policies on "claw backs" for senior staff, and the definition of the claw back and who is "senior" is going to be a mess for >5 years, and may become a problem that literally is never solved, ever.A 90% employment rate is not exactly impressive of course, since before the mess, the general employment level was better than that.Saying "90% of people got jobs paying >35K" would be a hard number, if true, but even then would beg the question of what they earned before. Oxford, for instance, seems to have a higher % of people who have worked before than Cass, so you can't easily compare the two.That's not saying Cass is bad, but that no financial masters produces any numbers that I really believe, or that can be used to make good decisions, which is of course more than a little ironic.