2nd Tier MBAs

S

sn8eye

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2026
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
GWB is clearly a social conservative but he definitely is not a fiscal conservative.
He is a big-government Republican and not my kind of Republican (less intrusive, small budget, limited government).
 
What exaclty is your point? Kerry went to Yale, same as Bush. Kerry indeed has a JD, from Boston College, a degree which, upon completion, requires you to demonstrate a decently high level of minimum competence in order to work in that field. So it's no surprise Bush didn't go for it.

sn8eye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Kerry didn't go to Harvard and doesn't hold
> MBA.
> Probably was rejected.
> I believe he has a JD, not from Harvard.
 
My point? I think Harvard Business School is more selective than Boston College Law School. So by process of deduction, GWBush performed better at Yale than JFKerry did.
 
"My point? I think Harvard Business School is more selective than Boston College Law School. So by process of deduction, GWBush performed better at Yale than JFKerry did."

Umm, you eat paint chips as a child? Live under power lines?
 
"My point? I think Harvard Business School is more selective than Boston College Law School. So by process of deduction, GWBush performed better at Yale than JFKerry did."

The median GPA for students entering BC law school (3.67) is marginally higher than the median GPA for students entering HBS (3.65) - so they're roughly equal - meaning by your logic, Bush and Kerry performed equally well at Yale. However, your logic is flawed as law schools place more weight on undergraduate GPA than business school does, so you can't necessarily use that method to determine whether Kerry and Bush has equivalent grades at Yale.

Law school is, in general, more difficult to get into than business school (the top law schools have a lower acceptance rate than the top business schools).

Boston College is actually a pretty good law school, especially if you're planning on starting your career in the Boston area.
 
I think a better point would be that Kerry and Bushs undergraduate records are generally part of the public domain, and Kerry did better than Bush. Also, the admissions process at any school is clearly not based soley upon undergraduate achievements - legacy factors and other non-qualitative things enter into the process as well. FURHTERMORE, all we have are two random samples - Kerry could have been the best in his class, and Bush the worst in his. Go fellate Harvard somewhere else.
 
shaka zulu,

Don't worry. We all know how wonderful LBS is.
 
Yes. I'm going to LBS in the fall!


imp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> shaka zulu,
>
> Don't worry. We all know how wonderful LBS is.
 
exemplaria Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why? You'd need a Dorm named after you at Yale
> and a Library named after you at HBS to get into
> either school with his academic record. He has a
> dismal record as both governer of Texas and
> president. He is comletely a product of time,
> location, luck, money and name recognition. I
> honestly believe he really is THAT stupid.


wow, that is scary. if you believe that the presidency can be achieved through "dumb luck" and family connections alone, without any form of ability or capacity, you must really think the system has failed.

I am pretty cynical, and I do not think the president is exceptionally intelligent (nor articulate for that matter), but I do not think he is stupid (far from it). I do not think someone who is truly stupid can get through Yale and Harvard, even if they were not qualified to be admitted.
 
You wouldn't have thought so, based upon our previous presidents (both D and R). However, I've seen nothing from the current one that would prove my thesis wrong. I think he's surrounded by competent people (I don't admire Rove, but you can't argue with results. Rove also has no college degree.) I think he's (Bush) good at working a room, surrounding himself with Yes-men, and exploiting his father's connections for personal gain.
 
"I think he's surrounded by competent people (I don't admire Rove, but you can't argue with results. Rove also has no college degree.) I think he's (Bush) good at working a room, surrounding himself with Yes-men, and exploiting his father's connections for personal gain."

And the GOP kingmakers in 2000 realized he was a monkey, but he would be their monkey so all the money went behind W. When McCain stunned them by winning the New Hampshire primary, the kingmakers crapped in their pants, started slinging mud in South Carolina and the rest is history.
 
Yeah, I just started reading up on push-polling. The wikipedia article on Rove is just full of "and then this sh!t storm happened...but nothing was ever conclusivly linked to Rove". If it looks like a duck...
 
3fer,
Care to explain the differences between an MiF, MSF, MF, MFE? I'm just not clear. Also, I noticed some MFE programs except you to have some sort of C programming ability. Is this common in non-MBA finance masters programs?
 
My understanding is that the LBS MiF program has the same level of quantitativity (I made up that word) as an MBA program with a strong finance curriculum. Most likely if you have a decent background in calculus, statistics, and regression you'd be fine. It just weeds out all the general management and softer skill classes, which is good for people who want to focus on finance and get finished sooner. This is different from schools who have a financial engineering course where it is hard core math and programming. I am not a quant jock so spending two years looking at cubic splines and martingale methods is not my cup of tea. I may take one elective in financial engineering that would have the high level math, but I sure wouldn't spend a whole two years of it.
You'd need to do your own research to find out what the requirements and objectives are of each program, because they will differ in their level of quantitativity.
 
exemplaria-

There are really two flavors of masters degrees in finance.

The first one being a MS in Finance or Masters in Finance. Essentially this type of program will give you the finance component of an MBA curriculum, and will be similar in content to the CFA program. In general, these degrees don't usually require a heavy mathematics background. The LBS MiF program discussed above will fall into this category (at least, I think it does). I'd guess that the sort of jobs people get after a program like this are similar to what an MBA graduate gets.

The other category is a Masters in Financial Engineering, Masters in Computational Finance, Masters in Quantitative Finance, Masters in Financial Mathematics. This type of program requires a very very strong background in mathematics and computer programming. A lot of students in this type of program have undergrad degrees (a lot already have masters or PhDs in other quantitative disciplines) in engineering, computer science, physics, math, etc. This program basically turns out quants and traders, and the coursework focuses mainly on derivatives/fixed income pricing and mathematics. This really is more of a "mathematics with applications to finance" degree. Berkeley's MFE program is a good example of this.

Very different in terms of curriculum, the type of students that attend, and post-graduation employment opportunities.
 
I think dstar's analysis is very accurate. I'm doing an MiF, but I plan to compete with other MBA's for Finance jobs. I'm not looking to be a "quant." I'd get my a$$ handed to me on the Wilmott Forum.
 
Just like to add a few thoughts with the caveat that I'm doing a MS in financial maths.

Agree with most parts of Darkstar's description of the MFE/MSFM/MSCF programs. Just got 3 points to add:

1) whilst strong math background is required, quant analyst generally just need to know enough programming to be autonomous. That means the ability to code to test the accuracy of the pricing of say an exotic derivative type. So depending on the vantage point, that would be low/average (for the true CS guys) or strong (for guys with no programming knowledge) programming skill.

2) Quantitative portfolio mgmt is as much a part of a typical MFE program as derivatives pricing. So whilst CFA gives us the efficient frontier and ask silly questions about it, one will actually learn how to derive these frontiers in a typical MFE (and MiF program I believe) course. And that is just the basic. Typically, quant pm will throw in additional stuff like stochastic volatility and/or correlations (think the Black-Litterman model). MFE does not teach fundamental analysis (FS analysis and stuff) which MiF does (i think). Instead, stuff like statistical arbitrage is taught, which is basically a stats approach to determining under/over-valued securities.

3) In terms of post-grad employment, it is true that most MFE grads tend to go into derivative/fi pricing or trading. However, with CFA as a bridging tool, MFE grads are also moving to equity research, pm with a quantitative inclination, private equity, vc and even corp fin (typically M&A), a traditional stronghold of the MBA grads.

oh, and most MFE programs are 1 year in duration (berkeley, stanford, columbia, chicago, NYU) and some are 18-months (CMU, georgia tech). don't know any program that is 2 years in duration.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at Monday, June 19, 2006 at 05:42AM by propanol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top