Imperial MSc Finance vs LSE MSc Economic History

Hey all,

I am a finance guy, i studied economics at undergrad, and my heart is in a trading career. I'm aware the two courses are completely different subjects, but in terms of general desirability and recognition:

1) Does the LSE name overshadow the more relevant finance degree at Imperial? (is it wise or foolish to sacrifice Imperial 'finance' for the 'LSE' name ?)

2) Is Economic History considered a 'respected' course by IBs and such? i.e. is it at all perceived as a 'lesser' course? (will i be at any disadvantage doing Economic History versus pure finance, economics, or economics and government at LSE, in terms of securing interviews and overall quality of degree?

Would i be right to say that there is a slight tradeoff between brand name power and course relevance here? Unless of course Imperial is equally as highly regarded in the necessary circles?

I have offers from both. What would you do in my situation? I actually know people in IB front office positions who hold both these degrees, but obviously i need to make a decision and pick one. Any input is welcomed and appreciated.

NB Was rejected by LSE MSc Finance. Economic History was my second preference.

(edited 12 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

RocknRap

Not sure if serious....

You want to go into trading, yet you're actually contemplating turning down Imperial MSc Finance for LSE MSc Economic History?

Dat **** cray

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 2

drugs

It aint cray bra. I know a couple of big firm traders who hold Economic history masters. You saying that Imperial finance is much more desirable than LSE econ history? Is the power of the LSE name compromised due to the course economic history? a little more detail would be much appreciated sir

Reply 3

Emo_Rhino

Original post by drugs

compare the % who got into IB for Economic History Masters against Imperial's.

Frankly I am very skeptical of people always saying Masters don't matter, like oh I seen IB people with political science Masters, or I seen IB people with Masters in Management. So what? I have seen people with history majors in IB, but would you go and study history to get into IB?

At the end it depends on the odds. I got rejected by LSE Msc Finance too, so it does seem that the popularity of that course indicates something eh? That studying Finance would be a safer option?

I think LSE is better Imperial but course wise, a safer bet is a Finance Masters.

Reply 4

Jakeh

The stats for Imperial don't lie. MSc Finance at Imperial is superior to LSE Economics History. And said earlier dat, ****, cray.

MSc Finance.

Bra?

A most probable explanation for why the placement stats favour imperials finance over LSE econ history is the simple fact that more of them WANT to go into IB (from imperial finance that is)

Lets put it this way, if an equal number of students from each course applied to IB FO jobs, which uni would do better?

Reply 7

RocknRap

Original post by Jakeh

The stats for Imperial don't lie. MSc Finance at Imperial is superior to LSE Economics History. And said earlier dat, ****, cray.

Ain't it Jay

Original post by drugs

For trading, between Imperial MSc Finance and LSE MSc Econ History, I'd say the former would get more in.

Reply 8

effofex

Original post by drugs

You do have a point. At smaller places, or when you are 3+ years into your career, the specific degree course will not matter.

However, think about what kind of trading you want to do. Any product area of interest? Flow? Algo strategies? At Imperial you will have the opportunity to do a thesis on the latter and actively test some out.

I got into trading with an unconventional degree, but I would usually lose out in an online app. selection process against someone with Maths from Camb, Econometrics at LSE, Master 203 at Paris Dauphine etc.

Reply 9

drugs

sales trading or trading in more vanilla products.

@effofex what product area are you in? and what is your alma mater?

Do you think LSEs less technical course will severely limit your desk options?

Reply 10

Tcastle

It's probably about time to stop using drugs if you seriously have any doubts about this.
To begin with, if you're planning on working in the UK,in trading, then brand wise Imperial is equal or maybe even tops LSE. Furthermore course related imperial is much better than LSE, again if you want to pursue a career in trading. So if you really are a finance guy, as you said, I again wonder why you want to study Economic History.

But even if you leave these things (facts) above-mentioned aside, I wonder what your explanation will be if they ask you why you chose to study Economic History. I hope you would make something up, because if you'd tell the real reason you 1) won't get the job 2) should be embarrassed.

I know that a lot of people want trading jobs or get into IB because of the attractive salaries. I understand that, but don't say you're all about finance if you'd consider studying economic history over finance because you weren't qualified enough to study finance at LSE, while on top the imperial course is even better finance-wise. No offence.

Reply 11

Lalafell

Original post by drugs

sales trading or trading in more vanilla products.

@effofex what product area are you in? and what is your alma mater?

Do you think LSEs less technical course will severely limit your desk options?

I think it will, and almost certain that this is true.

A person with a solid quantitative background and solid finance knowledge is always more advantageous than someone with humanities background for trading jobs...

Reply 12

effofex

Original post by drugs

sales trading or trading in more vanilla products.

@effofex what product area are you in? and what is your alma mater?

Do you think LSEs less technical course will severely limit your desk options?

I trade equity derivs - listed products. Am between firms at the moment.

I am ex-Imperial (biosciences).

My course was semi-quant - I would probably not be hired to an IR swaps or inflation desk. In terms of actual ability to do the work - maths at A-level is sufficient, but on say, a CVA/inflation/quant desk the masters/DEA degree in an appropriate subject (quant. finance, applied maths, engineering) will win out. If you have relevant experience you would be able to compete.

On cash desks (equities, spot FX) you will find more people with just a BSc or BA. At the moment I only have a bachelors.

Reply 13

drugs

Original post by Tcastle

Despite your overly harsh and ignorant tone, thanks for your response Tcastle. I studied economics at undergrad as previously mentioned and as such, I am interested in the history and evolution of policy in global economics as well as general equilibrium theory. Studying Economic History in that sense would naturally follow from my interests. Im a finance guy in the sense that I manage a portfolio and trade equities on various e-platforms in some of my free time so im genuinely interested in the financial markets. It is something I enjoy very much and would like to do professionally. In fact, I was recently personally invited by Credit Suisse to their London Securities spring week programme for placing 1st in one of their online trading competitions.

Nobody can deny the attractive remuneration attached to trading. But that is not a priority for me, so dont make unnecessary brash assumptions. My dilemma is purely based on how these courses/unis are relatively perceived by the employers. Frankly, there is nothing useful about your post other than that Imperial's brand name exceeds that of LSE for trading. So thanks for that bit of input.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 14

Tcastle

Everything can be considered constructive if you'd disregard the personal attacks and just extract my reasoning why you should chose Msc in Finance.
Nevertheless, you're right and my response was inappropriate. Meet the dark side of hypomania. I apologize :smile:

Reply 15

drugs

I still need to make this decision. Imperial's course is great in every way, but it is also more stressful and mathematically rigorous which decreases ones chances of performing well in it. LSE's on the other hand may be less relevant but it is also less rigorous making it easier to perform better.

I would guess that they are on equal grounds prospects wise (with LSE's restrictive to less complex desks i.e. derivatives, inflation volatility etc.) I have no appetite to be a quant or to handle exotics, but want to be a trader nevertheless.

Any care to comment on this?

Reply 16

Lalafell

According to one of my friends who did the MSC Finance, the failure rate is as high as that for UCL MSc Economics. The students there also have very heterogeneous background. The MSc Finance is as rigorous as the UCL MSc Economics.

If you don't have the background, then you should not go. You may end up with paying 25k(?) and no degree.

Your choice.

Reply 17

drugs

Iv heard similar things. Perhaps it is the background heterogeneity of the class then that is responsible for all the mixed signals ive been getting about the course. My background is economics but from what ive seen so far on the facebook offer holders group, more than 2/3 of them have mathematics related undergrad degrees such as maths, engineering (LOTS of these), and actuarial sciences. Economics/finance/accounting undergrads are in the small minority. Whats the failure rate if i may ask?