Msc Finance at Warwick : impressive figures

Original post by henryt

Ahhh - I can't decide guys! I've just been given an offer from Imperial, and I've had my unexpected offer from LSE for a few weeks, both for MSc Finance! What to do?!

LSE. I dont think the course is quite as good, but the name is worth it.
Did you take the GMAT?

Reply 203

awm55

7

Original post by Peaches182

I almost 100% agree. I think thats what its like for alot of people, including myself. For me, thats a big factor, but also the possibility of a PhD, which you cant really do without a masters.

My applications for internships this time round have been infinately more successful than my last intern applications. And I use the word infinate because 0 responses times anything is still 0 :smile:

. For me, the masters is also worth the shot at an interview, which I've never had before, and I'm getting a few already.
I've already done a practical degree in finance and I do question how any degree can claim to be so practical as to prepare you for work, unless you are doing some kind of modelling job.

I think another big factor for me and I imagine alot of people is that they like studying the material and gives another year of uni.

I think its a tad harsh to say the degree wouldnt be useful, but I do feel the extra attempt at applications is a big draw.

If you want to go into finance academia then obviously the MSc is best. No one where i work (a trading floor at a BB) was that enthusiastic about any of the programmes. But it does definitely get you another shot at the application process.

Reply 204

henryt

17

Original post by Peaches182

LSE. I dont think the course is quite as good, but the name is worth it.
Did you take the GMAT?

No GMAT! Hence why I'm still (a little bit) in shock! That's what I'm thinking - ultimately, I think LSE is more marketable, and is possibly better for networking. But the course at Imperial looks so much better organised. Gah.

Reply 205

Original post by Peaches182

What was the size of your class? on the website it says 176 is the current size, which seems very big.

yep sounds about right. they divide the class into two sets so class size for compulsory subjects is around 90 students.

Reply 206

Original post by henryt

Ahhh - I can't decide guys! I've just been given an offer from Imperial, and I've had my unexpected offer from LSE for a few weeks, both for MSc Finance! What to do?!

Simple choice really. Take LSE. MUCH harder to get into plus many IBanks have a preference for LSE (Citi for example)

Reply 207

Original post by Borisvian

Thanks...I hope that it will be fine...En passant, à ton avis c'est quoi le plus facile à passer le TOEFL Ibt (100) ou l'IELTS (7)...its a conditionnal offer...i have to submit a proof of my fluency in English...
Thanks in advance

Dunno which one is easier (i didnt have to take one) but im guessing you wont have a problem is passing either. I know people who speak worse english than you and passed the tests so i wouldnt worry if i were u...

Reply 208

Peaches182

Original post by henryt

No GMAT! Hence why I'm still (a little bit) in shock! That's what I'm thinking - ultimately, I think LSE is more marketable, and is possibly better for networking. But the course at Imperial looks so much better organised. Gah.

Congrats m8. I think you'll be good with either course. Another advantage of Imperial is that if you dont want to do a dissertation, you can do a 3000 word replacement + another elective, which I think is a good trade off.

Its funny, I always felt I would choose Imperial over LSE (just because of the course). But atm, I'm undecided about Imperial vs Warwick, but I would always choose LSE over Warwick?!! I understand the situation your in, although, I'm not quite as lucky to be in it :smile:

(not as in your lucky though, if you get what I mean :smile:

)

Reply 209

Borisvian

OP

Thank Emac for the answer (Actually, i sat for the TOEFL and wasnt at my best shape..I find it really annoying)...personally, i prefer the Msc finance at Impérial over LSE...but the fact is that LSE has a slightly better reputation in Finance....the content of the course is really poor...2 foundations courses plus 4 electives...its really a joke...Impérial Msc finance is quite better and will definitely give you an edge...I found the program very challenging and demanding in term of hard working and intellectual capacities
Anyways, they are both targeted and very prestigious...among the Top 4 universities in UK...Here you have an interesting article of the Financial Times about the most targetted universities in Finance..as it's the FT, I think that its credible and reliable :

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/854d8a6c-da81-11dd-8c28-000077b07658.html

Inner circle for Finance where all banks recruit : Oxford - Cambridge - Impérial

Outer circle for Finance where some banks recruit and others not : LSE - Warwick - UCL

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 210

Original post by Borisvian

Thank Emac for the answer (Actually, i sat for the TOEFL and wasnt at my best shape..I find it really annoying)...personally, i prefer the Msc finance at Impérial over LSE...but the fact is that LSE has a slightly better reputation in Finance....the content of the course is really poor...2 foundations courses plus 4 electives...its really a joke...Impérial Msc finance is quite better and will definitely give you an edge...I found the program very challenging and demanding in term of hard working and intellectual capacities
Anyways, they are both targeted and very prestigious...among the Top 4 universities in UK...Here you have an interesting article of the Financial Times about the most targetted universities in Finance..as it's the FT, I think that its credible and reliable :

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/854d8a6c-da81-11dd-8c28-000077b07658.html

Inner circle for Finance where all banks recruit : Oxford - Cambridge - Impérial

Outer circle for Finance where some banks recruit and others not : LSE - Warwick - UCL

Hey Borisvian,

I completely agree with you. Think the LSE is boring and doesn't offer enough options and the Imperial one is a lot more intense but unfortunately LSE is just more known in the City (and NY). No idea why, think LSE is wayyyyyyyyy overrated.
Yea read the FT article, was interesting. But that was talking abt the undergraduate studies and Imperial churns out a lot of engineers that banks like (in structuring/trading) but when it comes to corp fin, LSE is way ahead, on a different league almost. And since MSc finance isn't really gd enough for structuring role, my guess is that you'll b looking for jobs in corp fin and thats y i said LSE is better for that (not that Imperial is bad, it's very gd, just not as gd as LSE).

En fait, t ou en ce moment? Canada/France/Angleterre?

Reply 211

I think people need to look at facts when judging universities. A quick search on Linkedin reveals:

Numbers working or worked at Goldmans:
671 LSE
374 Imperial
659 Oxford
614 Cambridge
243 Warwick
496 UCL

Mckinsey:

Imperial 153
LSE 446
Warwick 65
Oxford 803
Cambride 620
UCL 205

The list confirms LSE/Oxbridge dominance in IB. However Oxbridge dominate the consultancy front.
I don't have time to compile a list for other banks/consultancies, but Im sure the figures are similar.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 212

Theophile

Original post by prospectivEEconomist

I think people need to look at facts when judging universities. A quick search on Linkedin reveals:

Numbers working or worked at Goldmans:
671 LSE
374 Imperial
659 Oxford
614 Cambridge
243 Warwick
496 UCL

Mckinsey:

Imperial 153
LSE 446
Oxford 800 something
Cambride 600 something
UCL 200 something

I don't have time to compile a list for other banks/consultancies, but Im sure the figures are similar.

There is absolutely nothing to conclude from these numbers (providing they are accurate which I am totally unsure). You need to divide them by the number of people from the aforementioned unis who actually applied to Goldman and McKinsey.
Why do assume everybody wants to work for these companies?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 213

Original post by Theophile

There is absolutely nothing to conclude from these numbers (providing they are accurate which I
am totally unsure). You need to divide them by the number of people from the aforementioned unis who actually applied to Goldman and McKinsey.
Why do assume everybody wants to work for these companies?

Because they are the two most prestigious companies to work for in their respective fields.
People want to study Finance at a prestigious university (which costs a bomb) so they could end up working for a prestigious company...

One would think a person wouldn't spend 20-30k on a finance degree to work for a NGO or the civil service...

PS I understand a lot of non finance people work at these banks and consultancies, but this thread is about MSc Finance, and having a strong alumni network helps.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 214

optioncameleon

Original post by prospectivEEconomist

I think people need to look at facts when judging universities. A quick search on Linkedin reveals:

Numbers working or worked at Goldmans:
671 LSE
374 Imperial
659 Oxford
614 Cambridge
243 Warwick
496 UCL

Mckinsey:

Imperial 153
LSE 446
Warwick 65
Oxford 803
Cambride 620
UCL 205

The list confirms LSE/Oxbridge dominance in IB. However Oxbridge dominate the consultancy front.
I don't have time to compile a list for other banks/consultancies, but Im sure the figures are similar.

Well you have to watch out about the backgrounds of these guys and where they are exactly in Goldman, I am willing to bet the Imperial, Oxford and Cambridge guys ( the majority at least) probably work on Goldman's FICC desk in a pretty quantitative role, so I don't think they really represent the market for Msc. Finance people. Plus if I recall quite a few banks are levering back to the IB side of the business since the crisis, especially with the pickup in M&A so yeah...I think you should "clarify" those stats

Reply 215

Borisvian

OP

Original post by emac1987

En fait, t ou en ce moment? Canada/France/Angleterre?

Currently, Paris/France..je bouge bientôt au Canada (niveau froid c'est violent)...je suis juste un peu embeter par cette histoire de test d'anglais...Sans indiscrétion tu bosses ds quel boite

Reply 216

Peaches182

Original post by prospectivEEconomist

I think people need to look at facts when judging universities. A quick search on Linkedin reveals:

Numbers working or worked at Goldmans:
671 LSE
374 Imperial
659 Oxford
614 Cambridge
243 Warwick
496 UCL

Mckinsey:

Imperial 153
LSE 446
Warwick 65
Oxford 803
Cambride 620
UCL 205

The list confirms LSE/Oxbridge dominance in IB. However Oxbridge dominate the consultancy front.
I don't have time to compile a list for other banks/consultancies, but Im sure the figures are similar.

I think another thing you need to take into account is the LSE reputation of pushing people towards IB and its extremely good location. LSE is almost a self fulfilling prophecy. It had a reputation for getting people into IB, so people go to get into IB, and cos the majority will want to do IB, they will get into it further increasing the numbers and so the circle begins again.
Not everyone from Oxbridge will want to do IB as will be the case with warwick and other top universities, but a large amount of people at LSE will want to get into IB, so those stats will be slightly biased.
I don’t think anyone is doubting LSE’s rep, but the massive point is, the course is soft, I don’t think anyone can deny that.
You do econ at Notts right? (it may have been someone else) Have you got an offer from LSE or something, just out of curiosity, you seem to defend the place alot, when no one is actually saying a bad word about it.

Reply 217

Mr. Roxas

9

Original post by prospectivEEconomist

I think people need to look at facts when judging universities. A quick search on Linkedin reveals:

Numbers working or worked at Goldmans:
671 LSE
374 Imperial
659 Oxford
614 Cambridge
243 Warwick
496 UCL

Mckinsey:

Imperial 153
LSE 446
Warwick 65
Oxford 803
Cambride 620
UCL 205

The list confirms LSE/Oxbridge dominance in IB. However Oxbridge dominate the consultancy front.
I don't have time to compile a list for other banks/consultancies, but Im sure the figures are similar.

Where's the source? Linkedin is incomplete and unreliable. Also, is this for undergrad or postgrad figures? Are MBAs included?

Reply 218

Original post by Mr. Roxas

Where's the source? Linkedin is incomplete and unreliable. Also, is this for undergrad or postgrad figures? Are MBAs included?

It's a "quick" and crude search where I typed in the name of the school and the company. Therefore it includes undergrads to MBA's. Of course Linkedin is incomplete since it only includes (fairly) technically save people.

However the point I am making is that people are judging universities on rankings etc, which in my opinion is less reliable of a universities prestige than, say, their alumni.

Reply 219