LSE MSc Finance & Private Equity vs MIT MFin — which is better for IB to PE roles?

Question

My long-term goal is still the IB to PE path, but I’ve also developed a strong interest in tech. I code almost every day and was part of a fintech project that worked on automating deal analysis. That’s why I’m torn — LSE seems stronger for traditional finance recruiting, while MIT feels like it gives more exposure to tech and quant skills. Which one actually balances both sides better?

Hema A · Accepted Answer

LSE MSc Finance & PE and MIT MFin both can lead to the IB to PE track, but the routes are very different. LSE is directly plugged into London investment banks and private equity funds. Recruiters there recognize the program as a feeder for M&A and buy-side analyst roles, with starting salaries around &pound;50,000&ndash;60,000 plus bonuses. The specialized PE focus makes it easier to connect with European funds, though breaking in still requires networking and prior internships.
MIT MFin, on the other hand, blends finance with heavy quant and tech exposure. Coding, data analysis, and machine learning are integrated into the curriculum, which makes it attractive to both banks and fintech-driven buy-side firms in the US. Placement outcomes include IB analyst positions in New York and PE/VC associate tracks, with pay closer to $100,000&ndash;110,000 plus bonuses. For someone balancing tech skills with traditional finance goals, MIT offers the broader mix.

T Mehta · Answer

Deciding between LSE MSc Finance & PE and MIT MFin usually comes down to where you see yourself working after the degree.

LSE is the safer choice if London IB or European PE is the target. The program&rsquo;s name carries weight in European buy-side recruiting, but it&rsquo;s very finance-heavy, so coding skills won&rsquo;t be used much in class.
MIT MFin feels different. It attracts recruiters who value both quant and finance. Roles often include IB analyst programs in New York, but graduates also land at hedge funds, fintech firms, and VC funds where coding or automation skills are an asset.
ROI is another angle. LSE grads in London IB roles start at &pound;50,000&ndash;60,000, while MIT MFin graduates in the US often begin above $100,000, though living costs in Boston/New York are high.
Visa rules matter too. The UK Graduate Route allows two years to work after LSE, but longer-term sponsorship is competitive. In the US, MIT grads can use STEM OPT for three years, which gives more time to secure H1B sponsorship.

So if the goal is a pure IB to PE track in Europe, LSE fits better, but if the plan includes blending finance with tech and quant, MIT provides more flexibility and a longer visa runway.
For more details you can read these blogs on "MIT MFin " and "LSE MFin"

Mansih K · Answer

For the IB to PE track, LSE MSc Finance & Private Equity is the more direct route. Being in London puts you in front of the banks and PE funds that hire heavily from there. The program itself is designed around deal flow, valuation, and exit strategy, which lines up with what PE recruiters want to see. Alumni placement into buy-side roles in Europe is strong, but the downside is competition &mdash; you&rsquo;re fighting with Oxbridge and LBS students for the same offers. If your career target is London or Europe, LSE is usually the safer bet for breaking into IB first and then moving to PE.
MIT MFin leans more toward quant and tech integration. The exposure to coding, analytics, and fintech is deeper, and Boston has strong links with both Wall Street and the tech sector. It&rsquo;s not as narrowly focused on PE, but it opens doors to quant trading, fintech, and even product roles if you decide IB to PE isn&rsquo;t the only path. If you genuinely want to keep both tech and finance open, MIT offers the broader skill set.

V Gupta · Answer

For IB to PE, LSE MSc Finance & Private Equity is very targeted. The program was built around that exact career path, and the alumni network in London&rsquo;s finance scene is unmatched. Banks and buyout funds know the course and recruit directly from it. If the priority is to maximize chances in traditional IB and then move to PE, LSE probably feels more direct.
That said, MIT MFin offers stronger exposure to coding, data science, and fintech-related work. It&rsquo;s better if the goal is to keep one foot in finance while also exploring the tech side. Boston&rsquo;s ecosystem also makes it easier to work on projects tied to analytics or startups. If the tech interest is serious and not just a side curiosity, MIT might balance the path better. For a pure IB to PE track, though, LSE still looks slightly sharper.

Jayant M · Answer

Choosing between them depends on what matters more right now.

LSE MSc Finance & Private Equity feeds directly into investment banking and PE pipelines in London. The degree name itself signals specialization to recruiters.
MIT MFin, while not PE-focused, is much stronger if the coding and tech interest continues to grow. It&rsquo;s structured with heavy quant and data elements, and employers in both finance and fintech value that.
If the end goal is strictly PE, LSE shortens the path. If the plan is to keep open doors to both PE and tech-driven roles, MIT is the safer hedge.

One small thing to note: MIT&rsquo;s brand in the U.S. also makes switching into tech-finance crossovers (like VC or fintech IB) easier than from LSE.