By top MBA, I mean top 2 
But I do think your theory is wrong. People compare CFA to CFP all the time and I donāt think itās due to a deep rooted respect for the CFP. Have you seen the commercial? lol what a joke
CFA is not even close to a top 10, even top 20 MBA in terms of taking you to the next level. You are automatically disqualified from many jobs in finance if you do not have a masterās degree even if you finished the CFA program. Many people without a graduate degree at desirable positions in finance either had top GPA at hacksaw school or went to an IVY, how many people fit that description?
I was joking around about top 2ā¦ Iām not sure where it falls on the spectrum but my points stand for most MBA programs out there.
When thinking of my masters in finance compared with what Iāve seen of the CFA program (wonāt directly compare with an MBA, since I havenāt done one), itās clear that each has itās own purpose. Itās actually kind of silly to compare the two about āwhich is better,ā when you donāt give a context for ābetter.ā The CFA program isnāt likely to be as useful as a masters to someone pursuing a Ph.D. in finance, for example. This is why, in one of the earlier posts, I mentioned the OP should consider his or her goals in tandem with the cost of each option; if a job wants you to have more of a math background, youād be mistaken to think the CFA person (high school algebra) would be more suited than someone at a decent MSF program (at least basic calculus, usually more). Thereās a reason one program is constantly updated to reflect the industry and the other makes you dig deep into the details of theoretical finance and economics (and usually requires research).
I canāt stress it enough-- the purpose of each course of study isnāt necessarily the same.
An MSc is a degree which instructs you to do graduate level research in the academic discipline of Finance. Note the bold part. It is not a how-to guide to solveseveral practical, real-life problems in Finance - as the CFA does.
E.g. I doubt that many undergrads w/a charter and no matter how many years of experience they might be having could ever estimate volatility clusters correctly. An Msc in Finance teaches you why such a task might be important and how to do it.
A Masters is not a āknow more about Financeā-program, it is a āI dig deeper into the theory of how things work and why they work like this and not differentlyā. In many points, they even tell you that the garbage you crammed into your head during your undergrad is wrong or even dangerous (CAPM e.g.). IMO, if you want to do more complex analysis (required in many more senior- / mgmt-positions) or at least understand their results, you need graduate level knowledge and skills.
LOL here comes the expert coming hot out of the gate!
How do you think anyone came up with the āhow toā guides that you see in the CFA program or other textbooks? Do they come from thin air or did someone who understood some theory think about how to link the real world and that theory?
Isnāt that kind of like a āhow toā guide but with additional reasoning?
Isnāt that learning more about finance?
Iām scratching my headā¦
this is not quite right. There is great variety in the scope and purpose of different MScās. And in actual fact, many Finance MScās are less research oriented than others.
Iāve heard some MSF programs tout that they prepare you for CFA level 1ā¦
MSF programs are basically for kids who didnāt get ideal roles out of undergraduate, nobody gives a crap about your MSF program, you might get a better job because of on-campus or network but MBA is what matters to employers for the most part.