Talk:Master of Finance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Finance (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Education (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

Does anyone think this article should refer to Master of Science in Finance (MSF)? M.Fin as offered at Princeton and MIT are actually VERY quantitative are they are more akin to Master's in Quantitative Finance, which is another article. --76.112.17.230 (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


I have edited this page to drop the dominance of Master of Science in Finance references in favor of more Master of Finance references. M.Sc. is the generic term used in Europe, however, the majority of new programs launched in North America in the last 3 years have been called Master of Finance, or Master in Finance. Examples include new M.Fin. programs at M.I.T., Wilfrid Laurier University, Queen's University, York University, University of Toronto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.59.119 (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Overlinked[edit]

To me this article looks severely WP:OVERLINK and looking promotional. I would think that it could be trimmed down in the external links, and if the sources are requisite then they should be authoritative and appropriately cited (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

MSFHQ.com[edit]

An external link for this site has appeared multiple times. This link seems to be completely promotional, and the site does not seem to have any authority. I have removed the link. I am willing to engage in a debate as to why this site should be linked to on this page. However, this site does not seem to adhere to any of wikipedia's external linking criteria for inclusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_can_normally_be_linked). This link seems to fall under "links that should normally be avoided" as it "Links to individual web pages[6] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services." This is a site that promotes/advertises masters in finance degrees, and provide resume and application review services. EtanaLF (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

MSFHQ[edit]

MSFHQ is the only online resource for the degree. The owner 1) has an MSF 2)frequently writes on the subject 3)speaks at conferences on the subject and 4) visits schools that offer the degree. He also is active on nearly every forum related to education and business school also, answering all questions pertaining to the degree.

Every MSF program is listed, along with placement stats, program reviews, GMAC updates, news articles, etc. Simply because services are offered does not mean it is promotional or not a resource.

As someone who has a master in finance degree, who utilized MSFHQ to make their decision and who has had the pleasure of meeting the person who runs the site I absolutely consider it a resource. Deleting it is doing a disservice to anyone trying to learn about the degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitman2010 (talkcontribs) 00:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you may have used the site to find your degree and that it is a relevant website, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included as an external link. From the guidelines external links should be: 1.Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below. 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided criteria apply. 3.Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. Links that can be CONSIDERED are: 1.Very large pages, such as pages containing rich media files, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such. 2.A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. Many options are available; the Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the of Finance Master of Finance at DMOZ template. 3.Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. 4.Links to Wikimedia sister projects with relevant material.

It does not seem to me that this site qualifies for any of the above. It contains relevant material, but is not notable or particularly respected and only contains information that can be found on any number of similarly created websites. A google search for the site name does not return any mentions of the site from reliable, notable sources in the field.EtanaLF (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


Please define to me what a notable or reputable or respected source would be? As someone who actually has the degree described in this wiki page, who researched the degree, and who has spoken to admissions officers at schools who have referred MSFHQ, I disagree with you.

The degree is very new and therefore has no "reliable" source other than this. Additionally, student reviews are not found elsewhere, placement information provided to the site owner from universities directly are not found elsewhere, nor is content directly written by the person who runs the site.

You are also moving the goal post. In your original post you talk about how the link is a site which falls under the category of links to "normally be avoided" and cite the following as your basis for deleting the link:

"Links to individual web pages[6] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising."

You then claim that "This is a site that promotes/advertises masters in finance degrees, and provide resume and application review services. "

So to your first point. The word primary is of focus. MSFHQ is not primarily set up to promote services as there is only one, small tab up top which references this. Hardly what would qualify as a primary purpose for a site which has over 400 posts regarding a degree where there is no other resource. One simply has to read the About section on the website to see the stated goal and purpose of the website:

"I created this site as a way to raise awareness for the MSF degree and to also help those who are interested in it with their research.

The site is updated regularly with up to date placement stats, student reviews, recruiting events and other information to provide the most comprehensive resource for anyone looking to pursue a master in finance degree."


Also, objectionable is a subjective term. There are no pop up ads, floating ads, or non Master in Finance advertising. In fact, all the advertising on the website is specifically related to Master in Finance program and are of interest to anyone researching the degree and going to the website.


Your further retort interjects the following element:

3.Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.


This alone would qualify MSFHQ as a valid link. The key word in this definition is knowledgeable, the definition being "Possessing or showing knowledge or intelligence; perceptive and well-informed". The site owner and author clearly fits this definition.

1) Has the degree mentioned 2) Has spoken on the degree at events related to working in finance, graduate admissions and graduate degrees 3) Works in finance himself 4) Has written articles on a variety of websites, all well known within the circle of people who are looking to work on Wall Street and/or go into a graduate business program 5) Knows and has relationships with the vast majority of MSF programs.


And finally, the most confirmatory piece of evidence supporting my stance is the fact that the link (http://www.bus.lsu.edu/academics/finance/faculty/dchance/MiscProf/MSPrograms.htm) which is allowed as a resource on the Master in Finance Wikipedia page also links to MSFHQ as an additional resource. In fact, the professor who runs the LSU page that is a "valid" resource per Wikipedia standards is in contact with the owner of MSFHQ and updates his site from information provided to him by the MSFHQ site owner.

Whitman2010 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would still contend that if this were relevant, it would be relevant as a source and NOT an external link. But this is certainly not a credible enough site (one link from one professor that the site owner seems to have a close relationship with? Has this site ever been used as a credible source by any person who is not closely linked with the site owner?) A site that meets "3.Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." criteria are only ones to be CONSIDERED, not ones that are necessarily should be linked. Looking at other degree pages on wikipedia, and the precedent that has been set on them, this site does not seem like one that would typically be linked.

Also - just curious...are you in fact the owner of the site we are talking about? I looked at your history and noticed that your only edits for the most part have been to add back the link to this site every time I or another editor has taken the link down. EtanaLF (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the external link; I fail to see what value it is adding here or how fits with WP:EL. It certainly is not the "only" resource available online as Whitman2010 states. Please obtain a consensus here before attempting to add it in again. VQuakr (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

1) I would like my points address. Here is yet another reference to the website.

http://blogs.owen.vanderbilt.edu/tamifassinger/vanderbilts-msf-program-offers-career-boost/

2) I think neither of you understand the MSF space or what resources are valid and/or used.

3) Another user modified my link and retained it. I fail to see a consensus for anything on this discussion. Simply one person who monitors education posts and doesn't understand this topic. And another user who does the same.


I will be adding the link back as I have a) rebutted all of the previous reasons for removing it and b) provided one and now two external posts referring to the website as a resource for MSF students. One being a valid and approved website and another being from an actually MSF program. Whitman2010 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


Additionally, please provide additional resources to support your statement. It is rather funny how I seem to be the only person laying out an argument and providing sources. You'd think that this site which is intended to educate people would be more thorough.Whitman2010 (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


@Etana - As I have mentioned above, I am not the owner. I am a graduate of an MSF program and someone who has used MSFHQ as a resource to make my decision, who has talked to the owner and who has heard him speak and read his articles. Additionally, I work in finance and refer other students to this persons webpage.

Frankly, all things I mentioned in my rebuttal which I had hoped was read. Apparently not.


Oh, here is another source to back up the inclusion of the link. See, I know this topic and space because I have lived it. Helps to really know a subject you are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Quantitative_Finance

See sources : Quantnet.

http://d36av5f9zaworl.cloudfront.net/QuantNetGuide.pdf

Page 19-20 Which Master’s Degree Is Right for You?

That is the owner of the website. Writing an article on the degree.


So now that makes 3 sources I have provided to back up my claim. How about this. I would like someone to define the criteria that would have to be met, that way it can be met. Whitman2010 (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be clear consensus that this is a spam link and not welcome. Please do not add it back. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


Please address my points. I have supported mine, you do not support yours. Whitman2010 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


I am bringing this issue up with this Bike person and will continue this. Glad to know the criteria for a "consensus" on this site as well as simply ignoring stated wiki rules and evidence to support a point. Whitman2010 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A few established Wikipedia policies;
It would appear your contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote MSFHQ. Spamming is never appropriate as it violates multiple wikipedia policies and Neutrality (a fundamental principle by which Wikipedia operates). Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site--Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


So wait. Because I add the link and monitor the Master in Finance page I am automatically assumed to be the owner? If I made a bunch of other edits elsewhere would that make me adding the link more valid?

And suppose I was the owner, which I am not. Does that change the validity of my argument that it is a resource? Why is it that I provide links and proof that backs up my claims, but everyone else just makes blanket, unbacked up statements and it goes without question.


Lets face it. We have a bunch of people who edit tons of wikipages and someone edited this one. They saw a link they thought was questionable and removed it. Honest mistake. I come in, as someone with specific knowledge on this topic and re-add it. Then it is removed, I add it back. I then find this talk page (sorry for not knowing this whole wiki thing) and lay out my argument. I am pretty darned detailed and provide back up. Then this back and forth starts. Whitman2010 (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia editors typically edit a lot of pages. You may have extensive knowledge of the subject, but all you have ever really done on this page and on wikipedia as a whole, is add this one link. That is the definition of a spammy wikipedia account - one created with the sole intention of adding links to specific sites. If you in fact are the site owner, it would be against wikipedia policy to add your own link, and should have instead come to the talk page to ask if the link could be added before doing it yourself. This is per wikipedia policy, which you should familiarize yourself with. No one made a mistake by removing the link - it is not what would typically be included as a valid external link on wikipedia.

You have provided 4 backlinks to the site in question, and yes, they are from professors and other people in the field. However, backlinks do not mean this is a notable source. To be notable, the site or site owner should really have been used as a citation in a well-known newspaper or academic journal...because even the most spammy sites (which I am not saying the site in question is) can get backlinks from .edu's. Even if there was a well-known newspaper or journal that referenced this site or site owner, this would still only make it a notable and reliable source and not necessarily a valid external link. External links are used very sparingly, and on education pages, are typically only for official accreditation agencies, etc. Though I am a new editor, I do frequently edit education pages and have noticed a clear precedent has been set on other education pages for the types of external links that are considered valid. As other users have said above by linking to wikipedia help pages, wikipedia is not a linkfarm and does not include every relevant site as an external link. EtanaLF (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


Ok, finally an actual response (albeit under different rational thank you first used to delete the link).

While I agree in theory to your definition of what a reference is, this degree is very new and doesn't have those sources you mention. The LSU website is upheld my a professor who runs the LSU MSF program. He has included this site as a "helpful resource". A senior person at Vanderbilt mentions it, another MSF program. The director of MSF admissions at OSU mentions and writes about it. Quantnet, which is a linked to source on the MFE wikipage included the sites author and site in their newest guide. On the about section there are other articles.

So yes, I agree. These articles aren't to the journal of finance or something on SSRN, they are reputable within this space.


My point is this, call it what you want, a resource, an external link, whatever. Maybe I am classifying it incorrectly. But the site is from a knowledgeable person. with supporting links, that provides information and resources for anyone interested in the Master in Finance degree. It is not solely in the business of selling services and all ads are MSF focused.


As for my activity on Wiki, I really just care about this page. It is something I am obviously passionate about and obviously have knowledge of. The write up on wiki is pretty good. Really not much to change and if you look at the revision history not much has been changed. I remember when there were other links on the site, some of which were obviously just link farms with nothing else. I didn't mess with them or delete anything. I simply put this site up because it helped me and others and is more and more often being mentioned and quoted.

Whitman2010 (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


And thanks for replying. I appreciate the dialogue. I can see how my links and behavior could be construed as being "spammy" so ill feelings held. Whitman2010 (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Masters in Finance HQ is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Many links do not belong here, nor is Wikipedia obligated to host them. Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/. --Hu12 (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me reiterate, it is not "my site". And I will let the owner promote how he sees fit. I considered it a resource and considered the variety of sources quoting the site or referencing the site to be valid enough to support its inclusion.

And while Wiki is not obligated to do anything, it is also being obtuse in not seeing how a nascent topic might not have journals or other commonly accepted sources discussing it. But I digress. Whitman2010 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Intro of Master in FInance[edit]

I have a point of discussion. In the intro to the Master in Finance post it says

"A Master of Finance (M.Fin.) is a Master's degree designed to prepare graduates for careers in financial analysis, investment management and corporate finance. An alternate degree title is Master in Finance or Master of Science in Finance. The latter is abbreviated M.S.F. in North America, where it is becoming less common relative to the M.Fin., and "MSc in Finance", in the UK. The program generally requires one to two years of study, and may be a non-thesis degree. In the U.S. and Canada it may be positioned as a professional degree."


Couple points.

1) I would content that this article is primarily related to the Master of Finance degree, which is abbreviated MSF. The MFin is used for more math focused MSF degrees (see MIT and Princeton). Also, it is MSF, not M.S.F.

http://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/business/graduate/specializedprograms/msf.html http://www.owen.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbilt/programs/ms-finance/curriculum.cfm

MS Finance is also an appropriate designation.

2) This section I feel is inaccurate.

The latter is abbreviated M.S.F. in North America, where it is becoming less common relative to the M.Fin., and "MSc in Finance", in the UK.

The MSF is the common specialized masters degree in the USA. Comparable to the MSc in the UK. The MFin is taught by MIT and Princeton and is more of a hybrid Financial Math degree than a traditional corporate finance focused master in finance.


That is all for now.

Whitman2010 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion: external link for MSFHQ.com[edit]

Hi. I'm a neutral editor responding to a request for input from WP:Third opinion. The incusion of an external link to MSFHQ.com is not permitted by the WP policies Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam. Let me know if more input is needed. --Noleander (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This wasn't really a case for third opinion, as so many people have already said it was spam that it was not a dispute between two people. Be that as it may, I would also like to agree with the others that this is blatant spam. Call that a thirteenth opinion. DreamGuy (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


I'm also responding, but I'm not clear how this is any more spammy than the LSU site now in the ELs, which includes what they admit to be a "shameless plug" for their own--though they word it that way as a bit of a joke, for it isn't actually much of a plug. I see no real reason not to list both, except the LSU one is likely to be more stable. On the other hand, msfhq.com/ includes international programs, which LSU does not. It seems a neutral source of helpful information. What are the specific objections to it? when the EL rules prevent us from listing inappropriate sites, they're useful; when they prevent suitable ones, they're not. General principles need to take specific cases into account, which is why we have IAR. I hope everyone here realises I am not friend of promotionalism, but I thin we're being over-demanding DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not disagree with your assessment that the LSU site is not great. The MSFHQ site seems to fail WP:ELNO #11 more clearly than LSU though. I draw the opposite conclusion - that neither adds enough value to the article to merit inclusion. I really don't see what the redeeming factors would be for the MSFHQ site that would merit invoking IAR. VQuakr (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The factor is that it is a good idea to have a list of these programs, and linking to a place that provides such a list is useful to the readers. We have normally not wanted to make such lists ourselves for individual degree programs, because they would be incomplete, inaccurate, and rapidly changing. (I'm aware of some exceptions, for academic programs that are extremely rare or even unique. We also could make such lists, because though an individual degree granting program at a school is almost never notable, the information that a school has such a program is appropriate content in that schools article. I'm not eager to do the work myself, of course, and we don't really want people from the individual schools adding it themselves, because that would not be fair inclusion, so I support the present practice of not making them for lack of a good alternative. But a good outside list can be linked to. It's not a violation of NOT DIRECTORY,for we are linking to a directory, not being one. I don't really see it as a violation of EL11, because with respect to this information, they are both responsible. Certainly LSU is; though the list is personal, it might be considered quasi-official, which I agree is why it would be preferable, if it were complete. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The characteristic that tipped me into the direction of spam was the fact that the msfhq.com site is an amateur site, run by an individual: "Hello and welcome to my site. My name is Anthony and I am a 2010 graduate of the Villanova Master in Finance program. I created this site as a way to raise awareness for the MSF degree and to also help those who are interested in it with their research." A valid site for external links, in my opinion, would instead:
  • Be a site maintained by a non-profit
  • Be a site that is run by an organization, rather than an individual
  • Be a site that has a proven track record (age)
  • Be a site that is has some evidence of reliability & trustworthiness
The msfhq.com site is essentially an advertisement for a $150 consuluting service:

"I regularly get resumes to review and have done a lot of them by now. If anyone wants their resume redone for school or a new job my service will provide the following: ... Free Consultation... Initial phone meeting to lay out desired industry, goals, objectives, etc .. Resume reformatted, errors corrected, bullet points expanded on ... Follow up phone call to discuss changes, added material and any additional needed changes ... Continued email support ...I believe in a high touch process. You will get feedback and be able to provide feedback through every step of the resume review. Turn around time is typically two weeks, but accommodations can be made if timing is critical ... $150 USD". (source :[1])

That said, I concur with DGG that the article would be better for readers if it contained a decent list of MF programs. --Noleander (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

1) MSFHQ is not "essentially an advertisement for consulting services". The site has over 400 posts on every US program, UK programs, programs in Asia, etc. Student reviews that the site owner personally receives. Placement stats. News articles and articles the site owner writes himself. I used the site when I was looking into MSF programs. People in my program have and I still check the site to see what is going on in the MSF world. The owner also runs a linkedin group which I am a member of which exists to raise awareness and promote the degree.

Yes, there are services offered but to say that the site primarily exists for that is to ignore the totality of information there.

2)The LSU site is a great resource, but is only a listing of programs. The LSU site references MSFHQ as a resource for additional information.

3) While MSFHQ doesn't yet qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia, it does not mean that it is not a resource and the author is not an expert in this degree. Since I actually have an MSF and have researched the degree extensively I know this.

4) Adding MSFHQ to this posting is a moot point right now. But if adding it were based on the above criteria, it should be included. It has a track record of over three years. Considering how new the MSF is in the USA (most programs are 5-6 years old) three years is significant. Furthermore, there are no other resources like this site. There is also evidence of trustworthiness and reliability. The site is being quoted and mentioned by admissions staff at a variety of MSF programs, as well as articles being written and hosted on a variety of site that students go to when looking for jobs in finance. Within this niche that is validity.


So yes, I get it, the Wiki community doesn't feel that the site meets the requirements for addition at this time. But calling it spam or not a resource is incorrect. I also feel that there is a level of misunderstanding going on as those without this degree truly do not understand it and understand how people go about research it. Also, as I mentioned above, the article on Wiki is full of minor errors and misunderstandings. But alas, I have no interest in correcting them as I have seen what happens when you try and argue points with professional Wikipedia monitors. My sin was being a specialist and arguing with generalist. Mea culpa. My apologies. I did not sign in. Whitman2010 (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There are no "professional" editors here. Everyone is a volunteer. Your "sin" was edit warring, not the discussion here. If you have corrections to make on the article, feel free - just take it to the talk page if any of your edits are reverted. VQuakr (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

MSFHQ Referenced in the September 2013 NACE Journal[edit]

MSFHQ was referenced numerous times in the September 2013 NACE Journal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Colleges_and_Employers).

"For advisers working with students interested in finance, the website MSFHQ.com provides a wealth of information about master's of science in finance programs from around the world, from class profiles to student reviews. Whitman2010 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent Link Additions[edit]

Is there really a need to be linking to a rapidly expanding list of schools? I realize they are being quoted, but does that add to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitman2010 (talkcontribs) 15:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)