Quants without phds?
 

How common is it to get a job as a quant without a phd?

Re: Quants without phds?
 

50/50 shot, either you do or you don't.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

not very common

Re: Quants without phds?
 

Possibly becoming more common with financial engineering masters becoming a bit more popular, but I'm not really sure how quantitative those guys go. I've read at nuclearphynance that in a few years the masters in FE will be fairly obsolete because everyone will have them and to differentiate yourself you'll still need a PhD. (although, most of those people have PhDs so they might not be unbiased)

Re: Quants without phds?
 

Depends, a quant is pretty general.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've read at nuclearphynance that in a few years the masters in FE will be fairly obsolete because everyone will have them and to differentiate yourself you'll still need a PhD.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't buy it. there's probably only 10-15 schools whose FE programs are worth anything on wall street, and their average class size is probably around 50. i don't see how less than a thousand people per year equates to everyone having an MFE in a few years.

if the MFE becomes "obsolete", it's more likely that it'll be because everyone has a phd.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

Lots of quants have PhDs, lots don't. Getting a quant job without good programming skills; that's near impossible.

There is more than one type of quant in the industry, but i think my comment applies to all.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

OP, depends on what you mean by "quant". My friend who is doing 40% marketing, 30% fundamental analysis and 30% regression calls himself quant. Another one who reads VaR values all day assumes he is a quant. They are not by my definition. However, there are real quants with even with undergrad.



[ QUOTE ]

i don't buy it. there's probably only 10-15 schools whose FE programs are worth anything on wall street, and their average class size is probably around 50.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at the trend you're wrong. When programs came out first, almost everybody got good jobs. I heard that U of T's program is not worth much nowadays. Only people who had PhD-s or financial experience going into the program got good jobs (and the market is not gonna be better than now).
I even know someone who didn't employed from NYU...his English is crap, but still.

Compare that to McGill finance PhD that had amazing placement in the industry (not so stellar in academia, but that's a different story).

[ QUOTE ]
i don't see how less than a thousand people per year equates to everyone having an MFE in a few years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Add one thousand more from non-elite schools, MBA-s with quantitative PhD-s, several thousand PhD-s with other quant major (who will not be happy working as an assistant prof for 50k), increasing software, outsourcing, and the fact that derivatives are becoming more complex.

However, on the bright side if someone gets into the field now with a masters and gets good experience, he will not have to worry about PhD-s taking his job.

Also, if someone wants to become a trader (that has way bigger upside than a quant), a PhD is not necessary.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

so you agree with me? great.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
so you agree with me? great.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over the short term yes. Over the long term no...like I said there other factors besides PhD-s that are not helping. But long term shouldn't really matter to someone getting into a program now.

And just because someone can't be a quant after a masters, does not mean a masters will be worhless. There are still a lot of lucrative finance jobs besides quant (trading, risk management, portfolio management etc).

So saying that masters is worthles because someone can't be a quant after, would be like saying that doing an MBA is worthless because you can't be a manager right after completing it.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

Depending on specifically what you mean by 'quant', I think that a PhD is becoming more and more needed to get a truly top job.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so you agree with me? great.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over the short term yes. Over the long term no...like I said there other factors besides PhD-s that are not helping. But long term shouldn't really matter to someone getting into a program now.

And just because someone can't be a quant after a masters, does not mean a masters will be worhless. There are still a lot of lucrative finance jobs besides quant (trading, risk management, portfolio management etc).

So saying that masters is worthles because someone can't be a quant after, would be like saying that doing an MBA is worthless because you can't be a manager right after completing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea i'm right now interviewing for a variety of different positions (MBA w/ concentration in Mathematical Finance...i.e. took 1 yr course series in math fin).

i can't program in C++ or java, or user defined macros or use complex VBA stuff so i have lost out on a ton of jobs.

if i could do it over again i'd minor in comp sci in undergrad and get an MSFin instead of MBA.

Barron

Re: Quants without phds?
 

you are all fixated on diplomas and not on skills. DcifrThs has just pointed out that he can't write code. What quant job (below top level in the organization) doesn't require writing code? pretty much none. but, you don't need a degree in anything in particular to be able to write code any more than you need a degree in French to read and write in French.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]

i can't program in C++ or java, or user defined macros or use complex VBA stuff so i have lost out on a ton of jobs.


[/ QUOTE ]

so why don't you learn? it's not that hard to be a better programmer than most comp sci majors.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i can't program in C++ or java, or user defined macros or use complex VBA stuff so i have lost out on a ton of jobs.


[/ QUOTE ]

so why don't you learn? it's not that hard to be a better programmer than most comp sci majors.

[/ QUOTE ]
i've been learning VBA via the excel forums and some trial and error.

i have a very strong matlab programming ability (though can't link it to outside sources for data) and a decent SAS programming backrgound due to my stint at dept. of labor.

i wouldn't even know where to begin w/ C++/java [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

do u have any suggestions?

thanks,
Barron

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
so why don't you learn? it's not that hard to be a better programmer than most comp sci majors.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't seem to know much about programming at all. sure, you can learn to pick up a particular language and everything there is to know about it, but without a good background in comp sci or relevant areas of math, it's going to be very tough to be a good programmer. i guess this is a generalized way of saying topics such as algorithms are much more important than knowing the particulars of a specific language.

i'm not entirely familiar on the subject, but those in quant fin. that focus on actually building production models really look to emphasize speed (and obviously correctness). most How to program in C++ in 21 days don't really teach you to build high speed parallelized production programs.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]

i've been learning VBA via the excel forums and some trial and error.

i have a very strong matlab programming ability (though can't link it to outside sources for data) and a decent SAS programming backrgound due to my stint at dept. of labor.

i wouldn't even know where to begin w/ C++/java [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

do u have any suggestions?

[/ QUOTE ]

all i can really suggest is picking up a book, preferably one with decent exercises in it that you can do as you read through it. you'd have to ask someone else for specific recommendations.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i can't program in C++ or java, or user defined macros or use complex VBA stuff so i have lost out on a ton of jobs.


[/ QUOTE ]

so why don't you learn? it's not that hard to be a better programmer than most comp sci majors.

[/ QUOTE ]
i've been learning VBA via the excel forums and some trial and error.

i have a very strong matlab programming ability (though can't link it to outside sources for data) and a decent SAS programming backrgound due to my stint at dept. of labor.

i wouldn't even know where to begin w/ C++/java [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

do u have any suggestions?

thanks,
Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

How good is your fundamental understanding of programming? I ask this because I think you'll be much better off in the long run by putting some effort in being able to write good code in all languages you decide to use than being able to write code in a particular language.

As for picking up a specific language, I recommend starting off with a basic "how to" book to get a feel for all the basics of the language. Get a reference book afterwards. As practice, you should check out some of the projects assigned to comp sci students at universities with good CS departments. I think this would give you some really good practical experience. I'm currently a EE/CS student at Berkeley. You can PM me if you want any project suggestions.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've read at nuclearphynance that in a few years the masters in FE will be fairly obsolete because everyone will have them and to differentiate yourself you'll still need a PhD.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't buy it. there's probably only 10-15 schools whose FE programs are worth anything on wall street, and their average class size is probably around 50. i don't see how less than a thousand people per year equates to everyone having an MFE in a few years.

if the MFE becomes "obsolete", it's more likely that it'll be because everyone has a phd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see where you're coming from. But what I meant was that before there was so few that they could easily find jobs in the industry however with more and more of them there'll be more and more competition (sort of like I imagine an MBA from Harvard guaranteed you a job at Goldman 15 years ago, now maybe not). The competition with PhDs? Not so much because there's always been PhDs coming over and they just fit it.

I could be entirely wrong, though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i can't program in C++ or java, or user defined macros or use complex VBA stuff so i have lost out on a ton of jobs.


[/ QUOTE ]

so why don't you learn? it's not that hard to be a better programmer than most comp sci majors.

[/ QUOTE ]
i've been learning VBA via the excel forums and some trial and error.

i have a very strong matlab programming ability (though can't link it to outside sources for data) and a decent SAS programming backrgound due to my stint at dept. of labor.

i wouldn't even know where to begin w/ C++/java [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

do u have any suggestions?

thanks,
Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy http://www.markjoshi.com/ seems to be relatively respected in the community of quants, and he has some recommendations on his site for books to read for all facets of quant life.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of quants have PhDs, lots don't. Getting a quant job without good programming skills; that's near impossible.

There is more than one type of quant in the industry, but i think my comment applies to all.

[/ QUOTE ]


thanks for the responses everyone. I guess I should be more specific WRT my situation. I'm an undergrad double majoring in math/cs, trying to decide if I want to pursue some higher education once I graduate, or go straight to work.

Reason this question came up is that I had a discussion with a phd student at my school's business program, and he told me many places will not even interview you if you for a quant position if you don't have a phd, which sounded extreme to me...

A lot of guys have mentioned MBA's/MFE's in this thread... does that actually benefit you for such a position moreso than a bachelor's degree, assuming you have good math/programming skills?

Re: Quants without phds?
 

if you know you want to be a quant and have the knowledge you need, there's absolutely no reason to stay in school.

there will always be people with higher degrees in quant, because the type of people who make good quants are the same type of people who think getting a phd would be interesting. but an advanced degree is far from a requirement to get a job.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

I have worked with great programmers with degrees in stuff like classical literature, art history, etc, it's more common than you would think actually. it is a lot like music in some ways, in that it requires a certain type of intuition and thought process that most people who are successful in it are wired that way to some degree.

I would think you would pick up programming very quickly barron, it really is not that difficult. the best way to learn to code is to get a job as a programmer, second best way is probably to take a class.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
if you know you want to be a quant and have the knowledge you need, there's absolutely no reason to stay in school.

there will always be people with higher degrees in quant, because the type of people who make good quants are the same type of people who think getting a phd would be interesting. but an advanced degree is far from a requirement to get a job.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes a lot of sense.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

thanks guys...some really great resources in this thread.

Barron

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Depending on specifically what you mean by 'quant', I think that a PhD is becoming more and more needed to get a truly top job.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know this was a baseless comment thread.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depending on specifically what you mean by 'quant', I think that a PhD is becoming more and more needed to get a truly top job.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know this was a baseless comment thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

? didn't you read the first response to my question by soko?

in all seriousness, are you saying you disagree with the person you quoted? Because it seems to be in line with your first post. Am I wrong?

Re: Quants without phds?
 

while i'm happy to see that this thread got to a more productive place, eventually, there seem to be a lot of people interesting in pursuing this type of career so maybe we should be a bit more careful with our advice.

there are a number of different jobs that quants hold. mathemagician54, what type of quant position are you looking for? are you interested in building derivatives pricing models? risk models? trading models? what do you really want to do? it may be that you don't really want to be a quant at all, but a trader and in that case this thread may be on the wrong track.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

http://www.nuclearphynance.com/

You could probably get some more advice there.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depending on specifically what you mean by 'quant', I think that a PhD is becoming more and more needed to get a truly top job.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know this was a baseless comment thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

? didn't you read the first response to my question by soko?

in all seriousness, are you saying you disagree with the person you quoted? Because it seems to be in line with your first post. Am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

the move will take time. it isn't like all quants now require PhDs.

the job specs all say "quantitative finance experience. MS/PhD preferred" i have something equivalent to an MS Finance (i was one of only 4 out of 260 MBAs to take the math fin concentration meant for phds and ms fin students) but the job specs also say "excellent programming ability a plus. familiarity/ability to program in C++/Java/comparable language required"

the % of quant jobs that i've seen (efinancialcareers/monster/hotjobs etc.) that require a PhD (i.e. specifically say "phd required) is probably less than 10%. the reason is that the "quantitative" title can legtitimately be applied to risk analysts, trade idea generators, economists etc. so there are wide ranging job functions don't necessitate a PhD.

it may be the case that PhDs are becoming "more required" than previuos years but i can't speak to that...

Barron

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
while i'm happy to see that this thread got to a more productive place, eventually, there seem to be a lot of people interesting in pursuing this type of career so maybe we should be a bit more careful with our advice.

there are a number of different jobs that quants hold. mathemagician54, what type of quant position are you looking for? are you interested in building derivatives pricing models? risk models? trading models? what do you really want to do? it may be that you don't really want to be a quant at all, but a trader and in that case this thread may be on the wrong track.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I don't know enough to say. All I do know is that I would like to try to do something related to finance that will let me use a lot of math (not trivial things though). You mentioned trading... i had some traders from a hedge fund come to my school for an info session. I spoke with them, and they said at their firm they don't really distinguish between quants and traders because they essentially do the same thing. Is this true of most hedge funds?

The reason I asked about quants as opposed to say, traders, is that after speaking to people who may or may not know what they are talking about, I was given the impression that traders did not necessarily use very much math; rather, they just implement trading strategies that say, the quants develop. (This greatly contradicts what the traders told me from the info session, since they said traders and quants serve the same purpose at their place.)

Is what the traders told me pretty standard for hedge funds, or no?

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]


? didn't you read the first response to my question by soko?

in all seriousness, are you saying you disagree with the person you quoted? Because it seems to be in line with your first post. Am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

A "top job" in general can be sought without a phd. A standard phd should suffice.

The OP asked if quants without phds existed. I said it depends on what you mean by quants, are we talking academic statistical crunchers or the more practical guys?

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I don't know enough to say. All I do know is that I would like to try to do something related to finance that will let me use a lot of math (not trivial things though). You mentioned trading... i had some traders from a hedge fund come to my school for an info session. I spoke with them, and they said at their firm they don't really distinguish between quants and traders because they essentially do the same thing. Is this true of most hedge funds?

The reason I asked about quants as opposed to say, traders, is that after speaking to people who may or may not know what they are talking about, I was given the impression that traders did not necessarily use very much math; rather, they just implement trading strategies that say, the quants develop. (This greatly contradicts what the traders told me from the info session, since they said traders and quants serve the same purpose at their place.)

Is what the traders told me pretty standard for hedge funds, or no?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think in general the quants will be the ones actually developing the trading models, while the traders will be putting them into practice. but the traders have to have a good understanding of them - and naturally they'll have ideas that can be incorporated into the trading models - so there will be a lot of overlap.

Re: Quants without phds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I don't know enough to say. All I do know is that I would like to try to do something related to finance that will let me use a lot of math (not trivial things though). You mentioned trading... i had some traders from a hedge fund come to my school for an info session. I spoke with them, and they said at their firm they don't really distinguish between quants and traders because they essentially do the same thing. Is this true of most hedge funds?

The reason I asked about quants as opposed to say, traders, is that after speaking to people who may or may not know what they are talking about, I was given the impression that traders did not necessarily use very much math; rather, they just implement trading strategies that say, the quants develop. (This greatly contradicts what the traders told me from the info session, since they said traders and quants serve the same purpose at their place.)

Is what the traders told me pretty standard for hedge funds, or no?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think in general the quants will be the ones actually developing the trading models, while the traders will be putting them into practice. but the traders have to have a good understanding of them - and naturally they'll have ideas that can be incorporated into the trading models - so there will be a lot of overlap.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are also traders who generate the models themselves. at Lehman they're called Desk Analytics (or desk quants).

the trading they do is mostly specialized (block trading).

but overall, yea, i think quants are typically the researchers and traders (in the more traditional sense) the ones that follow the model to make sure it gets executed.

Barron

Re: Quants without phds?
 

I think it's a bit different than this. While there are a lot of different types of quants (see my comment, above) trading jobs usually are more than just variants of quant jobs. They do tend to be users of models (or no models), but they frequently specify models, too. Quants who work with traders usually write the algorithmic code and may or may not develop the conceptual ideas. The way different organizations organize themselves is too broad to have one answer for this.

Those of you who are interested in being quants have to get comfortable that whatever the specific role may be, the job is likely one of working on research or implementation projects that include a good amount of code writing. Those of you who are more market oriented may find that what they really want to be is a trader.

The OP referred to a discussion with some traders who came to his school. What they described to you is neither unusual nor standard. There isn't a standard.

Dcfrthis. I've read a few of your posts and may have this entirely wrong, but the things that interest you seem more common to the things that interest traders, not quants.

As I did above, I think the decent number of you who are interested in being quants need to develop a better idea of which branch of quant is of most interest and best fits your skills. Yes, this is not easy to do without access to the right people, but you have to try. For example, if you want to develop quantitative equity models, don't waste a lot of time learning stochastic calculus. You should not take major steps without attempting to get a better grip on what you want to do.