Dilemma for Investment Banking


financer
Hello!

I am mature engineer from a crappy UK University with no Finance experience. I want to get into Investment Banking in London.

I have an offer for:
1) MSc Finance at LSE
2) MBA Warwick Business School

Which do you think you be better option?
Shall I do the MSc first and then try for an MBA at a better than Warwick school or I should go directly to the MBA at Warwick or elsewhere?

Thanks!
Hello!

I am mature engineer from a crappy UK University with no Finance experience. I want to get into Investment Banking in London.

I have an offer for:
1) MSc Finance at LSE
2) MBA Warwick Business School

Which do you think you be better option?
Shall I do the MSc first and then try for an MBA at a better than Warwick school or I should go directly to the MBA at Warwick or elsewhere?

Thanks!
quote
Duncan
The MSc would get you into the same roles as new undergraduate alumni. Low risk but low reward. The MBA would get you into a better role, probably, but more work for you and more risk. However, twice the salary. Even if you have to move diagonally, into some other finance function first and later into IB, the MBA would be better. Of course an MBA with more finance content word be better, like Cranfield, Manchester or London.
The MSc would get you into the same roles as new undergraduate alumni. Low risk but low reward. The MBA would get you into a better role, probably, but more work for you and more risk. However, twice the salary. Even if you have to move diagonally, into some other finance function first and later into IB, the MBA would be better. Of course an MBA with more finance content word be better, like Cranfield, Manchester or London.
quote
financer
The MSc would get you into the same roles as new undergraduate alumni. Low risk but low reward. The MBA would get you into a better role, probably, but more work for you and more risk. However, twice the salary. Even if you have to move diagonally, into some other finance function first and later into IB, the MBA would be better. Of course an MBA with more finance content word be better, like Cranfield, Manchester or London.


Thanks but what risk do you mean?
[quote]The MSc would get you into the same roles as new undergraduate alumni. Low risk but low reward. The MBA would get you into a better role, probably, but more work for you and more risk. However, twice the salary. Even if you have to move diagonally, into some other finance function first and later into IB, the MBA would be better. Of course an MBA with more finance content word be better, like Cranfield, Manchester or London. [/quote]

Thanks but what risk do you mean?
quote
Duncan
With an MSc you would get a lower salary so you will find work more easily and quickly, other things being equal. With an MBA you would get a higher salary, but have to work harder to find a role and would have a higher risk of not being in work within a few months. Compare the FT rankings.
With an MSc you would get a lower salary so you will find work more easily and quickly, other things being equal. With an MBA you would get a higher salary, but have to work harder to find a role and would have a higher risk of not being in work within a few months. Compare the FT rankings.

quote
laurie
Particularly, look closely at the average salaries of the programs listed in the FT's ranking, and compare them with what you're making now. Note that the salaries listed in the FT are for graduates three years out of their degrees.
Particularly, look closely at the average salaries of the programs listed in the FT's ranking, and compare them with what you're making now. Note that the salaries listed in the FT are for graduates three years out of their degrees.
quote

Reply to Post

Related Business Schools

London, United Kingdom 11 Followers 105 Discussions
Coventry, United Kingdom 59 Followers 492 Discussions

Hot Discussions