Greetings all,I am wondering if their is a preference among employers for graduates who's programme was anchored ina particular division of the school. In other words is a financial engineering degree offered from the school of management as good or percieved to be as good as one offered by the school of engineering or vice versa.I know that all of these programmes are highly interdisciplinary and require you to take classes from multiple departments, from what I have seen, but clearly there would be a somewhat different emphasis depending on who is offering the course. I guess if you come from a school with a good reputation it hardly matters which division but if you come from the engineering departmentand have a ME in financial engineering are you seen as more of an engineer than someone with the same title degree possessing an MS or MSc from a business school.Clearly, I am wondering about the same comparisons with respect to programmes which are located in the maths department. This may be a non-issue but in looking at the different Masters programmes there is quite a bit of variety in terms of deparmtents offering the courses and in my opinion the emphasis which each gives. This is somewhat confusing since the courses in many cases are offering supposedly equivalent qualifications.thanks

If you want to be a quant, go for a PHD (must) it doesn't matter whether the FE is from Maths orBusiness dept.But if you wish to be a trader/structurer, then I think better from a FE out of business school sincethe material is less quantitative and emphazies more on the overall application. also more well-balanced.Think carefully this field is getting too much competition nowadays not like 5-6 years ago !Hope this helpsJobseeker

adog,In my humble opinion, it doesn't really matter to employers if the programme is associated with the School of Management (Business School), Engineering or Mathematics, what matters more is the reputation of the Programme, the School and its Professors. This in its self I feel ranks below other matters and I will try and list them in my perceived order of preference.1.) Employment History, the grander the better (This is viewed direct evidence of your capabilities, I know this is difficult if you are just starting out)2.) Academic Record, Top student from an above average Uni. will beat average student from a top Uni. (this is taken into account the grades before and after Uni.)3.) Reputation of School (If you do a PhD as jobseeker says, then if your supervisor is one of the big hitters, that is big points to a quant department and this line will jump to No. 2, but then almost certainly your academic record would have been excellent thus far).The above three will secure a job interview and therein begins another un-mastered science. Other stochastic variable take over in differing weightings. Issues like confidence, appearance, rapport, team player....right down to the weather.I hope this has in some way answered some of your questions, remember in choosing a School, look for one that will also enhance your strengths (are you Mathematical or Business minded, Technical or Managerial, maybe both), as jobseeker said there is a lot of competition out there, maximise your strengths before working on your weakness.Mexx.

Mexx, totally agree !Are you an employer already ?Actually it is not easy, some program puts too much focus on maths, but lacks the business applicationSome just on business application, but the stoc. calculus is not in depth ...What is best is to combine, say CMU + Berkeley into a two-year program (i.e. M&A)In my opinion, this is the only way to tell the employer that the quality of those students canequally compete with top-school PHD.ALso I totally agree your pre-working history is also very important. Don't be so stupidto think that because you pay $30+K tuition fee can change your outlook and get a high payjob if you don't have the right experience. Better brush it up before you go to school. Otherwiseyou will regret ....Best,Jobseeker

Mexx and Jobseeker,Thanks a lot for the advice. I must confess I am more than a little confused and frustrated. I think this whole notion of what employers want is so vague that it almost isn't worth discussing apart from the three main points which you both raised i.e. PhD, name brand uni. with good advisor and work experience. I have one and a half of these in as much as my PhD advisor went to Berkley, Harvard and Yale worked for a Nobel winner and yet has absolutely no coat tails if you know what I mean. Additionally, we hate each otherso not much chance of a good ref. for job. The prospects of competing with 700+ people for a junior quant. jobbarely seems worth the effort. thanks,adog

Everything roots from the issue of MONEY , my friend ! WHo wants to work from 8:00am to 10:00pm everyday ... For what reason ?For job promotion ? If you are not fired in two years, you are already lucky working in these firms where they recruit the best person everyyear. Everybody is just for the sake of BONUS.So tell me if all the people head to the same jobs, what should you expect ? Easy to break into ? Of course NO.Whether it worths the effort depends on what you are looking for in life. If not for money but for better life quality, of course NO !Live and stay in the West Coast enjoying the sunshine and beauty babies worths more to me ....Just my truth words,Jobseeker