Quants without phds?

[mathemagician54]

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

[soko]

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

[stinkypete]

not very common

[MichaelL]

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)

[ArturiusX]

Depends, a quant is pretty general.

[stinkypete]

[ 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.

[ImBetterAtGolf]

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.

[crazy canuck]

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.

[stinkypete]

so you agree with me? great.

[crazy canuck]

[ 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.