It is interesting that from your perspective that Wilmott would feel that way about “maths” since his guest faculty and lecturers have included the likes of Taleb and his gang (e.g., Raphael Douady, Espen Haug, etc.). I guess I always thought of Wilmott as taking a balanced approach to quant such as questioning whether a model is even just designed correctly, not just the standard GIGO arguments that people tend to use in order to crap on the methods.
I must admit I haven’t listened to Wilmott much lately. When he’s advertising the program, naturally, he pumps up the maths-make-everything-better-angle. He may have toned it down since the crisis, but the language from his students sounds similar.
Hi All, I have posted this CQF review in other places, but here is an updated version here. I am happy to take any information requests or questions. I have nothing to gain or lose from this review, so you will definetly be gaining an honest and impartial insight into the “benefits” of the CQF. About Me: I have over 7 year experience in the industry, within Quantitative Market Risk. I have a Degree in Physics, Maths, and a PhD in Physics, as well as other professional qualifications. So the technical side of the CQF was not an issue for me. After a few years in the industry I decided to do the CQF for ‘fun’ - I thought it’s only a six month program and would be good to formalise my knowledge in finance. About the CQF: The CQF is a lower cost course compared to other Quant programmes, but it’s not a cheap course – coming in at close to £14k for a six months course it is quite steep. My view is that the program material is very dated. This material would have been very relevant back in the late 90s or early 2000’s but today it is just the basics, and most quant interviews and technical interviews wont even care to ask some of that stuff. The program teaches very little finance and really is mostly about applying a basic PDE approach to various products types. It covers other key elements but only at a very superfical/high level e.g. volatility and timeseries analysis. The basic material is even more frustrating as most of the lecturers are really not that great or experienced in either industry or acedemia. Out of all the lecturers only one or two were really any good, and they are actually full time researchers/lecturers in other universities. Another key point I want to make that is relevent in this day and age of MOOC’s (massive Online Open Courses), with all the excellent free courses available on the web, in particular the columbia course on Coursera and various YouTube videos on products and quant finance, the CQF really becomes a bit irrelevant and overpriced for what it is. I dont forsee the course to last for more than another five years. The course material and the extra lectures are not really value for money - in terms of audio/video quality and content. You candefinetly find better videos on C++ and VBA on youtube (check out Bucky Robert’s - The New Boston you tube channel for excellent courses on programming. Finaly, most of the people doing the course are from IT or back-office functions who are keen to get into quant or Front Office roles, so there are very few very knowledgeable finance or markets orientated people in the class who you can learn from. There is nothing wrong with this, but those who are hoping to establish a strong markets focused network I think you should look else where. Will It Help You Find a Job? I have been getting constant queries about this. So here is a more clear update to this question: If you are a new graduate I wouldn’t waste your money on the CQF, it would be more worthwhile for you to get a masters from a reputable university e.g. the Oxford, Coloumbia or LSE courses in Finance. However, if you have a PhD from a top university and would like to gain some extra skills and have 14k lying around then go for it, but if money is tight I don’t think scraping together 14K to do the CQF will increase your employability chances that much. If you are already in a somewhat quantitative area and want to formalise your knowledge or would like to do this for fun or gain learning momentum, its not too bad considering it consists of evening classes and you can watch videos at your leisure. But don’t expect this to open any doors, that is my key point. Again, I want to reiterate the point that a lot of you are continually asking me: If you are not already in a quantitative area, this will definitely not help you to get into that area, so I would advice you not to waste your money on this course but consider a MFE from a good university. I think the CQF might be good to formalise basic knowledge if you are already in that kind of area. Would I do it again if I knew then what I know now? Simple answer is… probably not. But then again I like learning, and the money wasn’t much of an issue for me. This was more of a fun thing for me to do, I like learning in a class environment and I like maths, so my arm could be twisted to do it again, but I would start with lower expectations. The final point I want to leave you with is that this is not the course if you want to move into a quant role or enhance your career - for that consider an MFE. But if you have a general ineterst in PDE math applied to quant finance then this course is ok (also if you have £14k to spare).
I came to this discussion while googling to find out how many people worldwide have received the CQF certificate. I haven’t found the answer yet, but I’ll share a few thoughts.
I have an MBA in finance, I’m a CFA charterholder, and I just submitted my final assignment for the CQF program. I work in portfolio management currently, and I have worked in asset management for the past 14 years.
I found the CQF program to be very challenging and very rewarding. It forced me to learn to become proficient in a number of mathematical areas where I previously had no proficiency, including linear algebra and differential equations. Also, it prompted me to get better at coding VBA and introduced me to Mathematica. It also taught me a lot about bridging the gap between long-form mathematical solutions in a theoretical world and numerical solutions in a practical world.
I enrolled in the program because I wanted to increase my quant capabilities (I had very little formal mathematical training previously), and because my company subsidized the cost of the program. I was able to keep working and immerse myself in the curriculum mostly in the early mornings before work and on weekends.
I admit, I completely underestimated the difficulty of the math(s) involved in the program. I remember seeing a video in which Paul Wilmott said, basically, the CQF maths are pretty rudimentary. Retrospectively, I think the requirements are in line with an undergraduate math program, which I had never gone through. After the first couple of CQF modules I took a break from the program, enrolled in a differential equations course at my local community college, and then returned to tackle the other CQF modules. I could not have completed the program without fortifying my foundation in differential equations. I would say that candidates should have a solid understanding of differential equations and statistics before they tackle this program. Although it’s *possible* to learn these things on the fly, you will find that the curriculum moves at a fast pace, and once you fall behind you will have a difficult time catching up.
To address the original questions…
* How good is CQF as a course? It taught me a HUGE amount. It forced me to learn many things that I would not have learned on my own. It gave me some great modelling tools, and gave me a solid confidence to roll up my sleeves and jump in to work with other portfolio managers, coders and actuaries who trained for years in their quantitative fields.
* How good is CQF as a medium to move to business side - trading / quant / risk management type role? As I would say about the CFA charter or any other credential, you sholdn’t count on it changing your life. Although you may get to interview for a wider range of jobs than you would if you didn’t have the letters after your name, you will have to show your skills, knowledge, experience and personality before you actually convince the employer that you’re the right person for the job.
Good luck!
I am considering doing the CQF. I have been for a long time, but it looks that now I finally found a funding opportunity. How would you value the continuing education program? I would not really go for the CQF to learn quant finance as this was a big part of my PhD, but continously learning new techniques from industry experts in a convenient way would be the ultimate selling point for me.
Their materials look out-dated.
The books were published in 2006,2007
Great comments QR, also thank you for the mention of other resources!
OP, you are probably long gone from AF but here goes…This is what I don’t get…You don’t want to invest 100k and 1 year to an MFE program for a career you really want? 1 year and you have the potential for a higher paying job and a job of your liking for the next +30 years. Not to mention the intangilbe assets you will gain from attending an MFE program - new network of friends, professors, and colleagues that will last a life time and who knows in what ways these people will become an asset for you down the line. If you have the grades and the brains gotta go for the MFE at top schools. This is no different for top20, I would say even top30 MBA. Sure CFA, FRM all these are cheaper but sometimes you get what you paid for right?
I have seen so many people throughout my career who have successfully changed their careers 180 degrees with an MBA from top30. As I have said, it is not only the tangible asset - immediate salary increase vs tuition - but also and more importantly the intangibles that has far higher value than tangible. MFE from Columbia, regardless of what you did prior will most likely get you into one of hundreds of quant or semi quant funds in NYC.