Can an engineering major get a job/internship in finance?

[baller4lyfe]

<p>

It is for this reason that finance and consulting firms will hire all-but-dissertation PhD candidates who not only won’t have completed their PhD’s, but in many cases won’t even have completed consolation master’s. For example, most (perhaps all) of the PhD finance or accounting students at Harvard or MIT could drop out to obtain finance jobs right now without having earned any graduate degree whatsoever.

</p>

<p>(I had a more detailed post for my response, but unfortunately my mouse accidentally X’ed out the window as I was writing, so I did my best to reclaim the important issues here in my re-write.)</p>

<p>Hiring all but dissertation PhD candidates who haven’t completed consolation master’s is fine on Wall Street I guess. But you do realize that the motivation to re-instate yourself into your PhD program after you’ve been granted an academic withdrawal (which is done on a case-by-case basis and I believe is granted for one year) dies down rather quickly. At least for me it would. Why not just get things done more efficiently and quickly and enroll in an MA program (1.5 years), complete it and drive it out of the way, and no longer worry about a certain “length” of a program if you intend to return? To me it seems rather counter-intuitive to backtrack your steps by reactivating your status after you’ve worked as an analyst for a couple years. You can just apply for the MBA instead with your “out-of-the-way” MA that doesn’t have to state “unfinished business” as the much lengthier PhD program would present (personally, I just abhor having things hanging on my back that draws my attention to something past, whether I intend to complete it or not, in this case: a Phd). But it truly is all relative as you mentioned on how you want to go about it. For me at least, I’d just want the fastest and least inconvenient means to address this situation and I guess the MA->Analyst->MBA track would therefore be the best option.</p>

<p>

Hence, to answer the question: “when do you start school again”, should anybody bizarrely ask you such a question, the best answer would be: “When this analyst position is complete”. After all, it is well understood that analyst positions last only 2-3 years, after which the vast majority of analysts will return to school of some sort, usually an MBA although sometimes a PhD or law degree program. In your case, you could simply argue that you’re actually ahead of the curve as you’ve already been accepted to a PhD program and have officially withdrawn, but can reactivate your status at the conclusion of your analyst stint. {Whether you actually choose to do so would be your call; after all, plenty of incoming analysts think they will head for B-school after their stint is complete, but then later opt not to do so, and nobody holds that against them.}

</p>

<p>I see, good way to address that matter. I just thought employers (especially Wall Street folks since they’re so nosy I guess), would pierce you on these questions and want to know what you’re doing to fulfill your education. But it’s probably to your advantage I conclude that completing your stand-alone MA would only be in your favor and in no way be to your detriment, so all else being equal, one ought to complete it. “Withdrawing” from the program would just give me qualms I guess for no reason, and the only program I know I would not withdraw from is the stand-alone MA, as the PhD is just too lengthy and indeed unnecessary in this field.</p>

<p>

Uh, have you ever lived in New York? You will pay a heck of a lot more than just $360 a month merely in extra rent alone to live in New York vs. Princeton NJ. New York is one of the most expensive cities in the world.

</p>

<p>I haven’t “lived” there, but my sister works there so I have visited once and I realize it’s pricey but the point of course was the commute and that in a nutshell would be just more convenient and/or practical when at Columbia and not Princeton. </p>

<p>

The goal of this thread - or so I thought - was to help engineering undergrads who don’t attend target schools find ways to enter the finance industry,

</p>

<p>Yes, that was the goal and in no way shape or form did I intend to divert the issue or “flame” it, but rather was pondering if MA students at a target school with a non-target discipline (i.e., Human Rights or NES) have a strong chance at getting into Wall Street, and to my surprise, with the Ivy article you initially provided and the lady with the BA from Princeton that you mentioned the answer was a bold yes. </p>

<p>That article you brought forth really shed important light on a matter that I was only partially aware of: leveraging an MA at a target school for the sole purpose of landing an analyst role.</p>

<p>Again, in this case, pursuing an MA at a target Ivy I realized opens the doors significantly for the Wall Street analyst role, as the recruitment is indeed, if I may be frank, suffused with Ivies.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

But you do realize that the motivation to re-instate yourself into your PhD program after you’ve been granted an academic withdrawal (which is done on a case-by-case basis and I believe is granted for one year) dies down rather quickly. At least for me it would. Why not just get things done more efficiently and quickly and enroll in an MA program (1.5 years), complete it and drive it out of the way, and no longer worry about a certain “length” of a program if you intend to return? To me it seems rather counter-intuitive to backtrack your steps by reactivating your status after you’ve worked as an analyst for a couple years. You can just apply for the MBA instead with your “out-of-the-way” MA that doesn’t have to state “unfinished business” as the much lengthier PhD program would present (personally, I just abhor having things hanging on my back that draws my attention to something past, whether I intend to complete it or not, in this case: a Phd).

</p>

<p>Uh, no, whether you would actually return to complete your PhD is not the issue. The issue is what you would say given the unlikely hypothetical that somebody actually asks you what you plan to do after your analyst position. Of course what you say and what you actually intend to do can be entirely different.</p>

<p>But, like I said, I doubt that anybody would ask you anyway, as it is generally understood that analysts are only going to be around for a couple of years anyway, whereupon they will move on to another endeavor. </p>

<p>

But you do realize that the motivation to re-instate yourself into your PhD program after you’ve been granted an academic withdrawal (which is done on a case-by-case basis and I believe is granted for one year)

</p>

<p>Given the bevy of lingering PhD’s who take 10+ years to finally complete their PhD’s - I’ve heard of a few cases of nearly 20 years - a one year “withdrawal” hardly seems to be exceptional. Heck, all non-science/eng PhD students, once having reached their dissertation stage, have effectively attained a “withdrawn” stage in that they aren’t actually required to be around, and indeed, if they were to disappear for long stretches of time, few people would even notice. </p>

<p>As a case in point, I know one woman who is studying for her doctorate at Harvard Business School, yet has been living in London with her husband and her new son for about 2 years now and counting. She shows up to Boston maybe once every few months to talk to her advisors. I know another doctoral student who just moved to Toronto where she just gave birth to her son. She plans to live in Toronto for the remainder of her time as a student, and possibly for the rest of her life, despite the fact that she still has at least 1 more year, probably 2, to finish her PhD. For all practical purposes, they have “withdrawn”. </p>

<p>

I haven’t “lived” there, but my sister works there so I have visited once and I realize it’s pricey but the point of course was the commute and that in a nutshell would be just more convenient and/or practical when at Columbia and not Princeton

</p>

<p>As I said before, I don’t think that internships really provide a significant boost. The Princeton history woman had no internships yet she was able to obtain a Wall Street offer with little trouble. </p>

<p>

Again, in this case, pursuing an MA at a target Ivy I realized opens the doors significantly for the Wall Street analyst role, as the recruitment is indeed, if I may be frank, suffused with Ivies.

</p>

<p>I said it before and I’ll say it again: the most straightforward path for an undergrad at a low-ranked school to enter the finance industry is to enter a MS or PhD program in finance or accounting at a name-brand school. Not only would you be leveraging your quantitative capabilities, but you would then be competing for a higher position than a mere menial analyst. </p>

<p>As an alternative, you could also enter a graduate engineering program at a name-brand school and leverage that to obtain a finance position. Why slog through the muck as a mere menial analyst if you had the chance to immediately leapfrog to becoming a venture capitalist as David Danielson did?</p>

[baller4lyfe]

<p>

Uh, no, whether you would actually return to complete your PhD is not the issue. The issue is what you would say given the unlikely hypothetical that somebody actually asks you what you plan to do after your analyst position. Of course what you say and what you actually intend to do can be entirely different.

</p>

<p>I’m simply going to say though that gaining admission into a stand-alone master’s would just be less arduous insofar as landing the analyst role is concerned, mainly because you don’t have to have sufficient research experience (and I aver that Ivy PhD programs require such experience in research as a prerequisite to admission), or have very high numerical stats. I know you said earlier PhD programs provide moderate funding whereas master’s don’t, but what if your PhD program doesn’t offer the consolation master’s? </p>

<p>But first:</p>

<p>{FYFI: please note this is all in relation to humanities graduate folks who want to leverage their way in to Wall Street; and this is in my case at the least, which is why I’m addressing this since I know you keep bringing up the issue of undergrads entering MS in finance or accounting; that is not the case here with my situation. We know that undergrad Ivy engineering/quantitative folks just land the analyst, or, alternatively, can choose the M.Fin or M.S. you keep mentioning, so I’m now talking about the Arts folks on how to segue into the analyst role despite the lack of engineering/quantitative background they did not major in or intend to in their undergrad (and STILL don’t intend to in their grad program, given the fact that it’s not possible anyway to ENTER a quantitative graduate program, due to their humanities background…so how could they possibly break through to the M.S. degree at an IVY when they clearly come from non-quantitative undergrads? Virtually impossible and I’m sure you would agree on that, hence, all the suggestions shown here are on how to land the analyst role by majoring in Arts at the graduate level)}.</p>

<p>And, correct me if I’m wrong, but both the terminal master’s and PhD programs in the humanities lead to the analyst role, therefore the only slight advantage one might receive if he/she chooses the PhD route is some kind of funding. All else being equal, must one choose a PhD program and receive an academic withdrawal (come analyst recruiting time) just so they can pursue the now offered analyst role instead? All that hard work of meeting the prerequisites to the PhD program (high scores, researching experience) is now immaterial because you landed the analyst role; well, then, so too does the terminal MA land the analyst role, but their preparation to the MA program was not as encumbering as was the case to the PhD one (don’t need researching experience, stats don’t have to be exceptionally high or competitive) so wouldn’t you argue that unless humanities PhD folks are offered an associate role instead, the MA program in and of itself just makes landing the analyst position all the more worthwhile (in the sense of sufficiently valuable to justify the investment of time or interest)? This is the vantage point where I think we need to address with regard to the position that recruiters offer the applicant, and both the MA and PhD in the humanities are equally given the analyst role (but feel free to dissent and state why the inverse is true if it is true).
Otherwise, despite some kind of limited funding, why not just take the terminal master’s? I want to know what you think about this strategy because it still leads to the analyst position just as the PhD would so I see no reason to adamantly reject a less costly (time and investment-wise) MA program that grants the same analyst role that a PhD program would yet the preparation for the PhD program is indeed harder with the same job prospect of an analyst that an MA would receive.</p>

<p>

As I said before, I don’t think that internships really provide a significant boost. The Princeton history woman had no internships yet she was able to obtain a Wall Street offer with little trouble.

</p>

<p>Probably not a significant boost, but a boost nonetheless I would say. Why else would Barclays® Capital state the following as I showed in the previous link?</p>

<p>[Level</a> Of Entry | Barclays Capital - Campus Recruitment](<a href=“http://graduate.barclayscapital.com/location/americas/our-programmes/level-of-entry-americas]Level”>http://graduate.barclayscapital.com/location/americas/our-programmes/level-of-entry-americas)</p>

<p>

Analyst</p>

<p>Analysts fulfill a multitude of roles across the business. To become an Analyst, you need an undergraduate degree and possibly a Masters. For a full-time role, it is beneficial to have work experience gained through internships. You should have strong analytical and communication skills.

</p>

<p>Perhaps other firms don’t care, it might be very case-by-case, but assuredly enough, biking to your internship daily would be far more cost-effective than taking the train daily with a required monthly stipend just to get to and from your destination. Again, not of particular huge concern, but the little differences can still make that markedly important distinction (such as attending Princeton and not interning in NY).
Note this is just a hypothetical and in no way intended to demote your valid point of not interning or make it immaterial, but just a consideration I would argue that most (if not all) banks/boutiques would appreciate some kind of interning, and it would be ideal if its close by. Perhaps Columbia can offer just that. Now getting the actual internship is also an issue, as joining some kind of club on campus that is remotely related to corporate matters or banking would be needed to demonstrate to an intern recruiter that this is part of your extra-curriculars, despite having a humanities degree. Joining these special interest clubs on campus is probably the way to obtain that internship if you are in a humanities discipline (at the graduate level, of course).</p>

<p>

I said it before and I’ll say it again: the most straightforward path for an undergrad at a low-ranked school to enter the finance industry is to enter a MS or PhD program in finance or accounting at a name-brand school. Not only would you be leveraging your quantitative capabilities, but you would then be competing for a higher position than a mere menial analyst.

</p>

<p>Absolutely, but remember the context of the situation we’re discussing here? That’s a given for quantitative undergrads, I’m discussing non-quantitative undergrads, such as myself or the Princeton BA lady you mentioned, who would want to do everything we can to obtain that analyst role to work our way up. As I mentioned under my FYFI tab, for those of us who have BA’s it’s next to impossible to suddenly jump into an MS (at an IVY, too) with our BA’s if we come from humanities or social sciences. Unless you know of a strategy where BA folks can enter MS Ivy fields with almost an absent high-end quantitative curriculum in one’s undergrad studies (i.e., history, english, political science), then we have to take that “menial analyst” role when at an Ivy with our MA degree in order to at least move forward. Unless of course you know of another strategy please share it, as I’d love to know it.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I’m simply going to say though that gaining admission into a stand-alone master’s would just be less arduous insofar as landing the analyst role is concerned,

</p>

<p>Yet there generally tend to be far fewer terminal master’s programs and the ones that exist tend to be highly specialized. For example, like you said, Princeton offers only one terminal MA program in Near Eastern Studies: a program that would seemingly interest only the tiny handful of students who can actually demonstrate a background in that narrow discipline. However, Princeton obviously offers a bevy of broad humanities PhD programs. </p>

<p>

but what if your PhD program doesn’t offer the consolation master’s?

</p>

<p>Even in the rare circumstances that it does not, you can almost always pick up another master’s degree in another subject. Most schools - especially the top ones - allow for such ‘concurrent’ enrollment by their PhD students. </p>

<p>Let’s use a concrete example. It is indeed true that most business doctoral programs at Harvard Business School do not offer consolation master’s programs. But the truth of the matter is that those programs require that students complete a significant amount of coursework in statistical research methods. Hence, it is not particularly difficult for those students to complete the relatively few additional requirements necessary for a MA in Statistics - and some students do that. Similarly, if your business research requires extensive computational modeling (i.e. you’re building numerical models to calculate macro-economic growth), you probably need to take extensive computer science coursework anyway, which means that not much additional work is required to complete a formal MS in Computer Science. Those master’s degrees can then effectively serve as the 'consolation master’s. </p>

<p>

And, correct me if I’m wrong, but both the terminal master’s and PhD programs in the humanities lead to the analyst role, therefore the only slight advantage one might receive if he/she chooses the PhD route is some kind of funding

</p>

<p>I think you are wrong: the PhD program can indeed, although with no guarantees, lead one to an associate’s role, provided you actually complete the PhD. More on this below. </p>

<p>

Otherwise, despite some kind of limited funding, why not just take the terminal master’s? I want to know what you think about this strategy because it still leads to the analyst position just as the PhD would so I see no reason to adamantly reject a less costly (time and investment-wise) MA program that grants the same analyst role that a PhD program would yet the preparation for the PhD program is indeed harder with the same job prospect of an analyst that an MA would receive.

</p>

<p>A key difference is that the terminal master’s program can only (obviously) lead to a master’s degree and then to an analyst position. But there is nowhere else the program can lead you; if you want to advance to the associate level, then, as you said, you will most likely have to return to school once again for your MBA. However, a PhD program can be used to obtain a consolation master’s and then an analyst job or can be used to complete the actual PhD, and then possibly an associate position, or perhaps even better. In other words, you have option value. </p>

<p>Now, I agree with you that, all things equal, the pathway towards admission is more straightforward to a terminal master’s program than a comparable PhD program if we set aside the fact that there are far more PhD programs than terminal master’s programs available. But if the true goal was to find the most straightforward path, then I really have to wonder why you didn’t simply major in computer science, applied math, statistics, a quantitatively intense version of engineering (i.e. EE, ChemE, AerospaceE, etc.), or perhaps a highly rigorous curricula in economics (with heavy doses of econometrics and analysis) in order to prepare oneself for admission to a name-brand MS or PhD program in finance or accounting. </p>

<p>

Again, not of particular huge concern, but the little differences can still make that markedly important distinction (such as attending Princeton and not interning in NY).

</p>

<p>What I mean is that it is not obvious to me that whatever boost you might gain from internships compensates you for the loss in prestige from choosing Columbia over Princeton - and let’s face it, Princeton is indeed a more prestigious school than Columbia. </p>

<p>Now, it is trivially obvious that Columbia with internships is clearly better than Columbia without internships. But that’s not the question that I was answering. </p>

<p>

Absolutely, but remember the context of the situation we’re discussing here? That’s a given for quantitative undergrads, I’m discussing non-quantitative undergrads, such as myself or the Princeton BA lady you mentioned, who would want to do everything we can to obtain that analyst role to work our way up. As I mentioned under my FYFI tab, for those of us who have BA’s it’s next to impossible to suddenly jump into an MS (at an IVY, too) with our BA’s if we come from humanities or social sciences. Unless you know of a strategy where BA folks can enter MS Ivy fields with almost an absent high-end quantitative curriculum in one’s undergrad studies (i.e., history, english, political science), then we have to take that “menial analyst” role when at an Ivy with our MA degree in order to at least move forward. Unless of course you know of another strategy please share it, as I’d love to know it.

</p>

<p>Sure, the other strategy for such non-quant students is to go to a name-brand law school: HLS, YLS, Stanford, Columbia, Chicago, Penn, etc. and leverage that to transition to an *associate<a href=“not%20an%20analyst”>/i</a> position. I suspect that the majority of students at the top law schools majored in non-quantitative subjects such as English or poli-sci. </p>

<p>But I nevertheless have to inquire: if finance was indeed your goal, why did you choose to major in a non-quantitative subject? I suspect that even that Princeton history woman would concede that if finance had truly been her life goal, she should not have majored in history. {However, in her defense, finance was clearly not her life goal, as she worked as analyst for only a couple of years before transitioning to consulting.}</p>

[monydad]

<p>Truth be told, many front office investment banking jobs are not really all that quantititative. The most important skills are soft skills, personal characteristics and skills relating most closely to liberal arts (ie reading and writing). The best analyst I had working for me had a degree in anthropology from Princeton. His quantititative skills were plenty good enough for the job. Specifics that were needed to perform the job were taught on the job. The quantititative apttitude has to be there, but we had no trouble finding liberal arts grads of the nations’'s very leading institutions who had the required quantititative aptitude. Along with superior verbal, written, presentation, leadership and interpersonal skills, which were at least equally important, and often more important.</p>

<p>Jobs in other areas of the firm, and other departments, required different mixes of skills and various emphases.</p>

<p>But in many respects a significantly important component of a front office investment banking position is that it is a sales job, consequently communication and interpersonal skills are very important.
The people computing stuff work for those people, in many cases.</p>

<p>If your goal is finance and you are attending a top school that is highly recruited, then it is fine to major in history, if you are interested in history. You are not being hired based on your particular knowledge in any school area, you are being hired based on your perceived capabilties to perform whatever they will have you do there.</p>

[baller4lyfe]

<p>

Yet there generally tend to be far fewer terminal master’s programs and the ones that exist tend to be highly specialized. For example, like you said, Princeton offers only one terminal MA program in Near Eastern Studies: a program that would seemingly interest only the tiny handful of students who can actually demonstrate a background in that narrow discipline. However, Princeton obviously offers a bevy of broad humanities PhD programs.

</p>

<p>Yes, they are indeed specialized, but they also nonetheless in my view trump the lengthy and costly route of the PhD if the expressed intent is to land an analyst role. You earlier alluded to the fact that, although there are no guarantees, if one “completes” the PhD, the associate role could possibly open rather than an analyst. But that is only after you do in fact complete it (which is what you stated), and that takes several years rather than a couple years (as a couple years is the length of the MA), notwithstanding the fact that no assurances of anything higher than an analyst will be offered, yet you’d be back at square one with the MA graduate who likewise was offered the same analyst role that the PhD graduate was offered, assuming one went in with a risk averse mindset in hopes of reducing the chance of negative or undesirable outcomes. Obviously the MBA is the quickest way (but due to required work experience that’s what inhibits us from taking this route, and especially in this dreadful economy), so therefore to build oneself up after undergrad, we need to look to the non-MBA graduate level to leverage onto Wall Street at this point, and for that, the MA would suffice in the shortest time in my opinion.
{Remember, now, this is for humanities undergrad folks who at this point can only continue in the same discipline to initiate themselves in Wall Street}
Of course, getting into H/Y/S for law school is also another option aside from the MA or PhD, which, upon graduating, grants you the associate role, but getting into those schools to land an “initial” job with Wall Street is absolutely cut-throat. So the other alternative then to at least land a job is to take the less competitive route of all these 3 options and the MA in that regard seems to satisfy that.</p>

<p>

What I mean is that it is not obvious to me that whatever boost you might gain from internships compensates you for the loss in prestige from choosing Columbia over Princeton - and let’s face it, Princeton is indeed a more prestigious school than Columbia.

</p>

<p>That’s true, and I think it seems to be clear. For example, in the article/URL you provided, there was a youtube video contained in that article that described the niceties or recruiting methods of Wall Street.
[YouTube</a> - Culture of Wall Street](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9rUzLoKpfs]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9rUzLoKpfs)
At 1:08, she states most Wall Street recruits are from Harvard and Princeton. Point established. Immediately thereafter she states “…and some of the other Ivy leagues”</p>

<p>Now, what about addressing this: Columbia is undeniably top 4 now, so if one does intend to enroll there, can one still have a “solid chance” at Wall Street even though it may not be H/P? For example, they do recruit at Columbia, so would MA students still have good grounds for recruit? This minutia seems trivial but can still point to a sign if we calibrate these differences and ascertain if Columbia grad folks are still desired. I know H/P would be better, but doesn’t Columbia nevertheless have a reasonable or more than reasonable chance? As she stated in the video “some of the other Ivies”, well then the very first school one would think of when she used that phrase would be Columbia (I’m surprised why she mentioned Wharton or MIT over Yale, though, which is top 3).
Would you suggest Columbia>MIT?</p>

<p>

But I nevertheless have to inquire: if finance was indeed your goal, why did you choose to major in a non-quantitative subject? I suspect that even that Princeton history woman would concede that if finance had truly been her life goal, she should not have majored in history. {However, in her defense, finance was clearly not her life goal, as she worked as analyst for only a couple of years before transitioning to consulting.}

</p>

<p>Actually, to be honest, my pure goal is not entirely finance, but I am most definitely contemplating it as a substantial side interest. I enjoyed learning international politics and civil rights policies as as an academic major, but job prospects for political science BA’s are indeed rather limited or ephemeral, whereas other fields such as finance are not. That’s why the Princeton history woman realized that to be the case; her pure interest may have been history, but her application may have been different. Of course there are folks who have the same interest in study and same application for it, but others differ on that. I even am contemplating medicine as well, since it is indeed a vital and intriguing field. So my interests are multi-faceted, but I think the issue of a discipline is somewhat impertinent here: possessing the qualities necessary to succeed in the business world are what ought to be examined, whilst the academic world can provide the means to achieve those qualities and can then be sufficiently carried over to unrelated fields (aside from licensing of course).</p>

[CoolioC]

<p>A third of MIT grads when into finance pre-recession, so I’ll go with “yes”.</p>