Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Imperial (Maths with Stats for Finance) or UCLA (Maths/Econs)?

Poll

UCLA (Maths/Econs) or Imperial (Maths with Stats for Finance)?

s.e.r.e.n.e

I received an offer from Imperial College for Maths with Stats for Finance and from UCLA for Mathematics/Economics. As I want to work in the Investment Banking scene in the future, which university do you think would put me in the best position?

I am from Asia (Hong Kong and Singapore based). Imperial is 3 yrs whereas UCLA is 4yrs. In terms of cost, both are the same (ie, Imperial is more expensive on a per year basis, 3yr Imp = 4 yr UCLA).

Pts for Imperial: London is really a coming up as a finance center that can rival New York.

Financial Times-Investment banking-Hedge Funds

London doubles share of hedge fund assets

By John Willman, Business Editor

Published: April 17 2007 08:36 | Last updated: April 17 2007 08:36

London’s share of global hedge fund assets has more than doubled over the past five years, while New York’s share is declining, according to a City of London thinktank.

International Financial Services, London’s annual report on hedge funds, said 21 per cent of their worldwide assets were managed out of London in 2006 against 10 per cent in 2002.http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7fdafbf2-ecb5-11db-9520-000b5df10621,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F7fdafbf2-ecb5-11db-9520-000b5df10621.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Freader%2Fview%2F
Opportunities are likely to be plenty.

UCLA, however, has the American and in particular Californian factor. You know that going US for studies is really the "in" thing to do. People from there are likely to be more able to "speak-out" and socialise -- a trait that is very important for being a deal-maker in Investment Banking.

The deadline for me to reply to UCLA's offer is 1 May. So please be quick and give me some opinions! (Please ignore my signature. The Firm and Insurance is only for UK universities.)

Reply 1

shady lane

If it were somewhere better in the US, I'd always recommend it. But UCLA is not really on the same level as Imperial in terms of math/economics stuff. It's not even a target university for investment banking recruitment.

Reply 2

s.e.r.e.n.e

I got an offer for Biostatistics from Cornell and Actuarial Science from LSE, but they are really not suitable.

Shady Lane... It is YOU again!

Reply 3

shady lane

Well you can't have gotten an offer for any specific courses at UCLA or Cornell, US universities don't do that. So you should go to Cornell.

Reply 4

s.e.r.e.n.e

It is written to be Biostatistics for College of Letters and Science at Cornell.

There is allowance for transfer but Cornell does not have courses that goes along the Maths/Econs line. That's why I applied to Biostatistics. No better course.

Reply 5

s.e.r.e.n.e

Hey everyone, pls just give some comments and suggestions! Not to forget to vote.

Reply 6

bananamoonbeam

Academically I'd say Imperial has a slight edge on UCLA - but that is just my opinion. They are both really good unis (as you know), and you will get v.good teaching at both.

However, if money is a factor America is much cheaper to live in than the UK (particularly London - housing and transport etc are very pricey). The environment in London unis doesn't tend to be particularly sociable, and you might find the weather quite cold :wink:

Reply 7

s.e.r.e.n.e

Thanks for all those who have commented.

Hey people please drop a comment and vote!

Reply 8

s.e.r.e.n.e

Thanks to the people who have just voted.
Pls continue to drop comments and VOTE!

Reply 9

bally

You'll have more fun in UCLA, and the academic standard is similar.

Reply 10

s.e.r.e.n.e

Oh thanks bally. Ya UCLA would have more fun but it is 4 yrs!
Pls continue to drop comments and VOTE!

I would go for UCLA.

Deadline for decision (May 1) fast approaching. People please vote!

Reply 13

yeung3939

Of course Imperial is better. It is not really difficult to get into UCLA.

Reply 14

s.e.r.e.n.e

ok thank you everyone for voting. thank you yeung3939 for the comment.

the deadline has passed for UCLA's offer and I would most likely be going Imperial.

Reply 15

nabeelv

Hi im 16 and in the uk and i want to do a similar finance course in the usa, any tips on doing so?

Reply 16

s.e.r.e.n.e

Go to the US Study sub-forum, they would be able to answer your queries.

Further, as a British Citizen I think it is still much better for you to stay in the UK. For one, getting a visa at the US is extremely difficult now. The chance of continuing work in the US after graduation is slim.

Also, if you want to apply to US unis, you need SAT, SATII, essays, tutor recommendations and a lot of complicated forms and procedures. If you can get into Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial/Warwick, you should go there.

EDIT: Unless you can get into Harvard-Princeton-Yale-MIT-Stanford-or Wharton

Reply 17

yeung3939

I personally think Warwick is in no match with public schools like UCLA, Virginia and Michigan in terms of both international reputation and research power. Warwick is somehow overrated and largely unknown outside UK.

Reply 18

s.e.r.e.n.e

yeung3939

I have reasons to believe so, esp. for UCLA and Michigan. Yes I believe UCLA and Michigan are better schools than Warwick, but the questioner is asking for a finance course with a prospect of entering the financial industry. My take on this is that it has less to do with the strength of the university but more to do with the amount of opportunities available per person competing.

There is only one NY and one London. For the US you have all the Ivies and MIT + Stanford + Berkeley +++ and the competition must be ridiculous. And if you theory that UCLA/Michigan is massively better than Warwick is correct, I believe that only shows that the competition at London is much less severe than at New York, because there is a sizable amount of Warwick grads who enter Investment Banks at the city. If this is true, the questioner should choose Warwick more than anything else. Ultimately, it is the outcome that matters. Further, according to what I heard, it is getting extremely hard to get a working visa at the US after studies. For the UK, the questioner would not have any problem since he is a UK citizen. Even if he is not, the UK is a lot more lenient on giving working visas than the US at this moment.

I don't really think an average Warwick student is "better" than an average HKU student, but I do believe that graduating from Warwick and work for big multinationals in London is a lot better for a person's CV than graduating from HKU and being sent to China immediately. What is your take on this Yeung? (I actually made my own decision along this line.)