[gudjbr]

I asked this over at the postgrad section, but only got one reply. Please help!

If I want to pursue career in Investment banking, how much better would a pure Finance master serve me than a Financial management master? I.e., in order to land a IB-job in the future, would I be a lot better off taking the Finance & Investment MSc than the Financial Managment MSc? Or do they pretty much have the same weight?

Furthermore, what real benifits does a Management master have over a Finance one (easier to get jobs at certain companies, etc?) I have got accepted to the Fin. Mgmt. MSc and I am considering applying for a change over to the Finance & Investment MSc. Will an investment bank hire me if I don't??

I would appreciate any help a bunch!

Thanks!

[Herr]

It depends who you ask.

If you ask the recruiting department of any university they will tell you that their program has plenty of investment bankers pursuing it or plenty of IBers had previously done it and are now successfully working in one, what they don't tell you is many of those were sponsored by their IB or already had significant experience within an IB when they joined the program and essentially the Masters was to further their career not begin their career.

If you ask a recruiter, they won't tell you no because that recruiter is either sitting in a career fair organized or funded by a university who provides such a course, it is generally bad business practice to bad-mouth your fellow exhibitors who are also trying to sell or buy something

Asking on a student forum most likely read by plenty of those who are also pursuing Masters qualifications in hope of getting their foot in the door of an IB, they will obviously tell you it is the best decision ever, no one likes to admit they made a wrong decision especially one that cost upwards of £25k per year to pursue.

Now if you ask a recruiter who sits on a panel that goes through the CVs on who to interview, you will suddenly find that your MSc is of zero use as very few places look beyond your Bachelors level qualification and work experience. Your MSc essentially adds zero value to an organization as you are primarily bringing a bunch of theory most likely one that the institution probably knows 100x better than you or your instructors, if you are trying to sell it on the basis of you having the skills to perform a certain job, generally all entry level jobs at an IB don't require a MSc and in your first year as a trainee analyst you will be put through trainings after trainings which would develop you far more than any MSc could ever do.

[gudjbr]

I disagree with you. I can get a better entry job with an MSc and will become more knowledgable/better at my job. But that is not the issue anyhow. The issue is whether or not a Finance master would serve me better than a Financial Management master, in terms of landing an IB job.

Anyone without the bitterness, and someone who has actually taken an MSc who can answer that please?

[SW1X]

(Original post by gudjbr)
I disagree with you. I can get a better entry job with an MSc and will become more knowledgable/better at my job. But that is not the issue anyhow. The issue is whether or not a Finance master would serve me better than a Financial Management master, in terms of landing an IB job.

Anyone without the bitterness, and someone who has actually taken an MSc who can answer that please?

Why'd you ask the question if you all you want to hear is "...Yes a masters is a super choice" accept other peoples views.

[gudjbr]

Did you read my post?

Because that wasn't what I asked about. I asked about Finance vs Financial Management in terms of getting an IB job. I do accept and respect his opinion, but that doesn't mean I respect him trolling my thread.

I don't want to hear that my "Master's is a super choice", nor do I want to hear that I'm stupid for considering a Master. I want to hear about Finance vs Financial Management. WHICH IS WHAT I ASKED ABOUT.

So please, anyone who can stay on topic, I'd appreciate any help! Thanks!

[SW1X]

(Original post by gudjbr)
Did you read my post?

Because that wasn't what I asked about. I asked about Finance vs Financial Management in terms of getting an IB job. I do accept and respect his opinion, but that doesn't mean I respect him trolling my thread.

I don't want to hear that my "Master's is a super choice", nor do I want to hear that I'm stupid for considering a Master. I want to hear about Finance vs Financial Management. WHICH IS WHAT I ASKED ABOUT.

So please, anyone who can stay on topic, I'd appreciate any help! Thanks!

Look at it from the eyes of the recruiter, they have two identicle CV's one with a Msc In Finance and the other in Financial Management. Is it going to make any difference? No of course not. It doesn't matter which one you do, which one do you enjoy more by looking at the modules etc? Either one is not going to be better over the other.

[gudjbr]

Thanks for the reply! Finally

I talked to a recruiter today that I know personally, who said that it would be better to take the pure Finance MSc. He said something along the lines of: "They want to hire people who have done the same things as they have done themselves, and with most of them having studied hardcore Finance, that would be slightly more favorable for you".

I think I would enjoy Fin. Management slightly more. Then again, what if I'm slightly more attractive for a recruiter if I have taken pure Finance. Furthermore, the Finance & Investment course is ranked 25th on Financial Times' Masters in Finance rankings, whilst Durham's Management Masters are ranked 59th on FT's Masters in Management rankings. Is that something that I should weigh in really, and do the recruiters pay any attention to it?

Thanks again.

[TomasK]

(Original post by gudjbr)
Thanks for the reply! Finally

I talked to a recruiter today that I know personally, who said that it would be better to take the pure Finance MSc. He said something along the lines of: "They want to hire people who have done the same things as they have done themselves, and with most of them having studied hardcore Finance, that would be slightly more favorable for you".

I think I would enjoy Fin. Management slightly more. Then again, what if I'm slightly more attractive for a recruiter if I have taken pure Finance. Furthermore, the Finance & Investment course is ranked 25th on Financial Times' Masters in Finance rankings, whilst Durham's Management Masters are ranked 59th on FT's Masters in Management rankings. Is that something that I should weigh in really, and do the recruiters pay any attention to it?

Thanks again.

Do you genuinely think recruiters scan through the rankings year after year to recruit person X over person Y because some newspaper or whatever concluded that one uni is better than the other?

[gudjbr]

They obviously keep themselves updated about which schools are worth recruiting from, yes. But they probably do not "scan through rankings", no.

[TomasK]

(Original post by gudjbr)
They obviously keep themselves updated about which schools are worth recruiting from, yes. But they probably do not "scan through rankings", no.

What I meant by the above is that 'rankings' of the top institutions are fairly constant (should be fairly constant) and the slight 2-3 position deviations should not matter. Sorry I can't contribute much to this question since I'm also a firm believer that FinMan=Fin. But even though the recruiter told you that Finance MIGHT be favorable due to the common ground reasons, it only offers you a pretty much one-person perspective, and even the resource you're quoting isn't guaranteeing anything since 'slightly more favorable' isn't really a clear-cut answer. How do you calculate favorable-ness-ness-ness? Fin = 2.3 'favorables' vs. FinMan = 2.25 'favorables'? Doesn't sound too legit.

[gudjbr]

Sounds about right. My conviction at the moment is that as long as I choose mostly finance related modules I will have taken a fairly similar degree and even more so will my FinMan=Fin.

I just want to be perfectly sure I won't be at a disadvantage due to choosing one over the other, which it is starting to lean towards me not being. Thanks for your reply.