<p>Wouldn't it be really hard to be able to intern as a quant in an investment bank with just a bachelor's degree. I know investment banks rarely hire non-ivy league graduates. I currently go to The Ohio State University, which is nowhere near ivy league caliber. I actually have applied for transfer admissions to some ivy leagues for mathematics. They are Penn, Yale, Columbia, and Cornell. If I get into any of those, do you think accepting admission will be beneficial if I want to intern as a quant? I imagine it still must be hard for someone with just a bachelor's degree even from an ivy league, right?</p>
<p>Thank you Zoolander for taking time to post the links. I am definitely looking over them.</p>
<p>actually no, several of those people whose resumes i saw were like econ + math double major, econ + statistics double major etc, and they got internships as quants...you dont HAVE to be from an ivy....u can be from other top b schools like NYU Stern, U Mich Ross, MIT etc....and besides, those people might not have interned as undergrads, they probably interned as post-grad students</p>
<p>choudvik, when quagmire talks of MIT and Ross and NYU he talks of high end programs. Yes, Ohio State will be difficult to impossible, if you can transfer to Ivy do so. Yes, internship matters. For most of the quant masters program, a math background is essential, that is, PDEs, real analysis, etc. They all say that the main reason someone is rejected is inadeq math background.</p>
<p>Historically, there were no masters programs in Financial Engr or Computational Finance, hence quants came from PhD in astrophysics, etc. Since mid 1990s, starting with CMU quite a few have emerged, please note it is a ruthlessly competitive field. Go to Princeton's ORFE site, go to FAQ, there is a link to articles on quant finance and general finance education, I am not good at attaching links, if you fail to access I will ask my son to send it, you need to get into CMU, Columbia, NYU, Haas, Princeton, Stanford or Chicago, then PhD may be redundant.</p>
<p>tetris, the PhDs who work for masters work for the MBA types from HBS, etc. They don't work for quant masters typically. The PhD is a credential at this point, it is easier to believe a PhD in astrophysics is a grand modeler than an MA. The point is the capacity to do high end research is important. No, you don't waste 10 years on a PhD, beyond the MA it should take 3 years. I will urge my son to get a PHD, being asinine!!!</p>
<p>I will definitely have a good math background since I will either have majored in mathematics (most likely) or chemical engineering with a minor in mathematics. So, I guess going to an ivy will help with getting internships and work experience. One concern I have about ivies is their level of difficulty. Let's say I do in fact want to get a Ph.D. in mathematics, for which I don't need work experience or internships. I would probably look more competitive graduating from OSU with distinction in math with a 3.7/3.8 gpa with mostly As in my math courses vs. graduating from an ivy with like a 3.0/3.1/3.2 gpa with a lot of Bs in my math classes, right? So, could going to an ivy league hurt me possibly?</p>
<p>choudvik, no. Grad schools and professional schools know what GPAs mean at different schools. At an Ivy you are with bright, highly accomplished students mostly and the hidden curriculum, what you talk in the corridors, dorms and cafeteria, will shape you. That is more important than course grades.</p>
<p>Haha. Most Ivy league schools have grade inflation, choudvik. It's a harder to get into the Ivy league than it is to get kicked out--gentleman's B and all that. I'd be worried if you were attending Chicago or Swarthmore or something, not an Ivy. Of course it depends on where you go, Princeton and certain departments at Cornell and Dartmouth are generally the harshest graders in the Ivy league.
[quote]
tetris, the PhDs who work for masters work for the MBA types from HBS, etc. They don't work for quant masters typically. The PhD is a credential at this point, it is easier to believe a PhD in astrophysics is a grand modeler than an MA. The point is the capacity to do high end research is important. No, you don't waste 10 years on a PhD, beyond the MA it should take 3 years. I will urge my son to get a PHD, being asinine!!!
[/quote]
Getting a PhD in astrophysics is wasted time, and someone that's doing something that difficult with finance in mind will undoubtedly fail and/or produce low-quality work. PhD programs are not easy. At the doctoral level it doesn't matter if you're "good" at math, you have to love the subject, you have to be able to convince people that you love the subject and you have to perform well without distractions. If the entire rationale behind getting a difficult doctorate is to end finance as a quant it's likely admissions committees will see through the charade, and it's likely students will burn out early on.</p>
<p>Now if you love x subject, and it happens to be highly quantitative, and you want to be able to have some potential for doing certain things in industry in the future--that's another matter, but you're sure as hell not going to leisurely walk through a 4 year astrophysics doctorate program at CalTech. If the goal is finance, though, it's the equivalent of majoring in mathematics because you want to get a doctorate in economics and teach it. Yes, a mathematical background will help you in admissions, but you're basically wasting four years doing something you don't want to do so you can eventually do something you do want to do while putting yourself in a position where if you fail (which considering motivation plays a key role in these things is likely) or do worse than you thought you would you're shooting yourself in the foot in two ways--you didn't get to study the field you're interested in, and you've pretty much killed your grad school prospects.</p>
<p>tetris, perhaps you have misunderstood me or I have not explained myself properly. To do astrophysics Phd in order to do finance is asinine. The astro PhDs who are in finance probably never intended to work in finance, tried astro out of passion, couldn't find jobs or were later attracted to finance.</p>
<p>What I meant was that the best modelers and quants were PhD level people, not that only astro and math PhDs were recruited. I would be urging my son to get a PhD in financial engineering if he is seriously interested in the field.</p>
<p>certain ivies have grade inflation</p>
<p>I am aware of grade inflation at ivy leagues. But, it seems like they usually take place in humanities classes. The science grades range the whole spectrum from As to Fs, right? At least that's the way it seems to be at Penn. Also, even with grade inflation, getting an A or an A- would still be really hard at an ivy, right? I am currently at OSU, and I only have a 3.7 right now. So, about what gpa I could expect at an ivy like Penn or Yale? If I can get As in honors math classes at OSU, would I be able to get B+s or better in math classes at ivy leagues?</p>
<p>very little grade inflation at Ivies in sciences and engineering. The so-called grade inflation is essentially the increase in average grade from 3.1 to 3.3 in two decades across the Ivies. There has been some honors inflation, Latin honors, at Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The PhD is a credential at this point, it is easier to believe a PhD in astrophysics is a grand modeler than an MA. The point is the capacity to do high end research is important. No, you don't waste 10 years on a PhD, beyond the MA it should take 3 years. I will urge my son to get a PHD, being asinine!!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ramaswami, historically, quants have been Ph.Ds, but that trend has changed...in the past, there were no degrees in quantitative/mathematical finance offered, but now, there are several graduate programs in financial engineering, mathematical finance etc, that prospective quants dont need to get Ph.Ds....some quants today do get Ph.Ds, but the vast majority of them just get masters in quantitative finacne</p>
<p>Besides the moot point that quants are physics PhDs and all of that, the main reason they were hired directly resulted from a choice bunch of skills now compactified into the modern quantitative finance masters programs. </p>
<p>Many of the people going into these physics programs didn't have any intention of become quants, but with some of the more esoteric fields where vaunted academic positions are still the only alternative, the decent stable pay quants receive isn't such a raw deal.</p>
<p>quagmire, see my post number 24. For me to insist on a PhD in astrophysics in order to do FE would be like insisting on a classics tripos at Cambridge just because the early computer scientists did that.</p>
<p>Even now, DE Shaw and Ren Tech prefer PhDs in math and physics. And chess masters and Putnam winners. The discipline is less important than the capacity to do high end problem solving.</p>
<p>Let's say that after completing a Ph.D. in mathematics, I decide that I want to become an actuary. I know that actuaries only need a bachelors degree. Would having a Ph.D. make me overqualified, and thus, hurt my chances of becoming an actuary?</p>
<p>normally you'd want to complete some tests (~1-3) before graduating from 4 year for an actuary
if not, w/e, it will set you back a couple years however.</p>
<p>and most actuaries get their phd in math (not only bachelors) because the level of math needed to be a fellow or similar level is just so much more than BA level</p>
<p>One advantage of a Phd program over a masters program that hasn't been mentioned is that, in quantitative fields, PhD students get full-rides. The Masters programs in Financial Engineering or Math that I've seen do not offer funding, and can cost you (in the case of Stanford, for example) upwards of $60,000 a year including living expenses.</p>
<p>This alone is not enough reason to get a PhD, of course. There are several others: 1. Potential flexibility later if you don't end up liking finance, or finance jobs get tight, or there is a period in your life when you would like to do something else like teaching. 2.The chance of more interesting work -- at DE Shaw, for example, they don't just plug numbers into models but develop new math that's related to finance, and now also to other applications like biology. 3.The experience of doing research and finding out whether or not you like it.</p>
<p>If you're someone whose life's goal is finance and you can afford a masters program in financial math and can get into NYU or Stanford or some other top program, then I agree the PhD is probably not necessary now that these programs exist. But not necessary is not the same as not worthwhile.</p>
<p>As for the original question about which PhD program: statistics, operations research, applied math, computational math, computer science (if they're heavily involved in scientific computation), as well as some math departments and interdisciplinary institutes likes Stanford's Management Engineering and Science (cross between econ, applied math, cs and operations research) may all have faculty working in financial math depending on the university.</p>
<p>does anyone know the difficulty of getting into a program like Columbia M.S. in financial engineering. What is the acceptance rate? What's a good ug major?</p>
<p>Thank you, kmzizzle. I am glad to hear that having a Ph.D. in math would not overqualify for me a job as an actuary, but would actually benefit me. I completely agree with you, sac that Ph.D. students are at an advantage since they get full rides whereas masters students don't get any funding. That has actually been a prominent thought in my mind regarding whether to get a masters or a Ph.D.</p>