Financial Engineering '08 Results

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
1

<p>I thought it'd be nice to know how the first class of FE concentrators did in the Wall Street job hunt. I'm not sure why the department doesn't just put a list on its webpage like Princeton does. </p>

<p>Any and all information would be helpful:</p>

<p>-GPA, minors?
-ECs, internships?</p>

<p>-Where they ended up
-Which divison
-What role</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure no one on this board is FE '08, so we'll have to settle for anecdotes. Oh, any comments on how FE did relative to the rest of IEOR would be appreciated too. Thanks.</p>

2

<p>is a CC econ/poli sci major allowed to minor in FE?</p>

3

<p>^ No, the closest you could get is the Econ-OR joint major. Or you could just take the FE classes as electives, but I don't think they'll recognize it as a minor. </p>

<p>Come on guys, help us out here. 90 views already - lots of people are obviously interested in this stuff.</p>

4

<p>I got into the FE program but I'm a rising junior so i cant really provide you guys with any job placement info..</p>

5

<p>I'm also a rising junior in the FE program.
One of my friends who was in FE 08 told me that "you will get a job" coming out of FE.
However, it should be noted that the majority of FE students at columbia are aiming or have aimed for for traditional finance positions such as ibanking and trading rather than pursuing quant type positions for which the major trains well for.
This is probably due to the fact that quant positions are relatively unknown outside the math team/physics olympiad/etc people for which there is a relative scarcity of these people here at Columbia than schools such as MIT or Harvard.</p>

6

<p>Can you please tell me what your GPA is? I think the anonymity of these forums makes it OK to ask this personal question but if you feel it is unseemly please forgive me and ignore the request.</p>

<p>I am asking this because I have a rising sophomore at Columbia SEAS who is interested in FE and hence I want to know entry requirements. I am told GPA is the critical factor.</p>

<p>Also, although math/physics olympiad people were traditionally recruited by RenTech etc I think the very existence of FE programs, particularly at grad levels, says others with quant finance savvy are welcome. Also, I think Haas or Chicago website says quant people are easy to find, to find those with finance intuition plus quant skills are a rare breed, hence I venture to suggest that the FE undergrad concentration well prepares you early on for developing a quant finance intuition. Thanks.</p>

7

<p>I have no idea what RenTech is. Traditionally, math/science olympiad people are hired by small boutique hedge funds/quant firms such as DE Shaw or Citadel. Now, major banks are catching up, and all bulge bracket firms have quant desks. I'd say you need at least 3.8 or above to be competitive for FE.</p>

8

<p>I dont get your distinction between quant people and people who have quant intuition. </p>

<p>It's easy to find people with knowledge of finance, but it's hard to find people with a strong enough mathematical/analytical background to apply it to finance.</p>

<p>Honestly in my belief FE at columbia doesnt do much to nurture these talents. People who have talent in this field probably spent all their lives doing math/science olympiad problems which gradually built up their intuition. Thus, its not to say that FE at columbia has a problem, for it really is a good program, but to go into quant finance you don't really have to be a FE major. </p>

<p>This is why quant firms target math/physics departments of top schools such as harvard and mit.</p>

9

<p>I graduated in '08 (in neuroscience). I have a few friends in FE, most of whom ended up in the bulge bracket in Asia, the US and Europe. So yes, I think it's safe to say that you will get a job if you do FE. It's an intense, selective major, but it pays off. I don't know GPA's--but they probably varied a lot. At least one of my friends complained about getting a C in a class, but he may have just slacked off senior year because he had a Morgan Stanley job waiting for him :)</p>

10

<p>I knew it was only a matter of time before ramaswami showed up in this thread...lol</p>

<p>rupert, if I understand you correctly:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>the Columbia FE program is supposed to train students for quant roles, but these roles are filled mainly by Harv/MIT math/physics olympiad types.</p></li>
<li><p>in turn, the Columbia FE students go into ibanking/trading, the "traditional" non-quant roles as you call it.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>well, that sounds pretty dang good to me considering some anecdotes i heard about quants having to take their marching orders from those in the "traditional" roles. apparently quants aren't as directly responsible for profit&loss as ibankers/traders are, so they are regarded as a cost center rather than a revenue generator. i suppose it's a different story if you're at a quant fund like rentec or shaw. </p>

<p>that said, check out what Derman said about studying quant finance as an undergrad:</p>

<p>"Mathematics is crucial to financial modelling, but it's not central. It shouldn't obscure the fact that finance and economics aim to be practical. If economics is about anything, it's about the real world. For this reason, I often find myself questioning whether undergraduates should learn quantitative finance. Sensible modelling requires so much experience, taste and compromise that perhaps it should be postponed until students are more mature. Better as an undergraduate to learn solid concrete skills that are of unquestionable value rather a host of financial models that may be transient and incorrect."</p>

<p>Link: What</a> Quants Don't Learn at College</p>

<p>This from the director of Columbia's FE program...</p>

11

<p>I agree with the professor.</p>

<p>To clarify though, i didnt say FE at columbia didnt train the students well for quantitative finance. It's just that at this stage theres probably no need. Honestly being a math or physics major as an undergrad would suffice at quantitative hedgefunds. I'm not totally sure about bulge bracket firms though. I know from personal experience that in most quant interview no finance question is really asked to the interviewee, and it's mostly brian teasers competition type math questions that, if you did math competition in high school (up to AIME level) then you should really have no problem answering the questions.</p>

<p>So, once again, if you're specifically looking for quant jobs, dont feel pressured to do FE, but it will help you get the non quant jobs for sure.</p>

12

<p>I'm not sure about quants taking marching orders from other positions in the firm. I know that it's not the case in small quant oriented hedge funds, but I am not sure about the situation in bulge bracket firms. However, I will say that quant jobs are more safe and stable than other jobs such as ibanking or sales and trading during a down market.</p>

13

<p>Shruggingsheep, I am happy to provide a source of mirth by showing up on this thread.</p>

<p>Opinion is knowledge in the making, as Milton so neatly puts it in Areopagacitica, and these forums are places to refine my thinking. If I am inconvenient to you, say so, I will cease.</p>

14

<p>rupert, I understand your earlier point about quant recruiting being more focused on Harv/MIT, simply because olympiad types tend to flock there, and not because Columbia FE provides inadequate training.</p>

<p>But if we consider that numerical analysis for PDEs (APAM 4301), graduate level probability (Math 4155), time series analysis (Stat 4437), stochastic calculus/differential equations etc. are used by quants for pricing and risk management, then it seems like undergrad applied math/stat would provide better training for future quant work than FE would. Which is basically what the good professor is saying, right?</p>

<p>You're right, at quant funds like DE Shaw or Rentec it's the quants that run the show. However, this guy I exchanged PMs with related that quants at banks were culturally dissimilar to traders and treated as "egghead geeks" (which they probably are, but that's beside the point). But as trading becomes increasingly quantitative, I suppose more quants are going to move into trading roles at banks, and the whole dynamic is going to change.</p>

<p>But heck, I don't plan on being a quant. If undergrad FE gives an edge for non-quant jobs, I'll gladly take it.</p>

<br>


<br>

15

<p>Yes, thats exactly what I said.</p>

<p>In quant jobs, just like most other jobs, on the job training is provided. Quant firms would much rather have people who have solid math/science backgrounds (math, applied math, physics etc) and thus have the potential to quickly translate their skills to quantitative finance rather than people who have finance backgrounds but are less adept at those subjects.</p>

<p>The reasoning is that while finance can be easily learned and picked up, the ability to think creatively and analytically as demonstrated by those who usually major in the subjects mentioned above cannot.</p>

<p>Hope I helped you, if you have any questions just ask me, and I'll be glad to answer your questions.</p>

16

<p>is it possible to get quant jobs straight out of undergrad? i thought most quants need to have masters degrees or PhDs. As far as I know, the most quantitative job an undergrad can get is in S&T, somewhere along the lines of structuring, risk management etc</p>

17

<p>I read Derman's almost-incomprehensible cant. Such is the state of academia today.</p>

<p>Out of curiosity, I researched the educational backgrounds of a number of stars on Wall Street, from Guru Ramakrishna and Pandit to Paulson, etc etc. The MBA figured more often but undergrad degrees varied from history to engineering. Some had only undergrad degree, and that too only in areas like history. It seems that there are many paths to top finance jobs.</p>

<p>Let us turn to quants since some of you will object that quant finance is a more specialized field. The stars at Ren Tech, for example, are math and physics grads, lot of chess players, Jim Simon actually prefers to hire people with no knowledge of finance. But that was in the past when no MFE around.</p>

<p>But let us not argue by exception, let us look at a no of companies. Reading the placements of grads of Haas, NYU etc, all the MFE grads found jobs in a variety of finance jobs including quant jobs. Thus no PhD required. Reading the placements of princeton Operations Res undergrads, with finance engineering concentration, they too found quant jobs and other finance jobs. Again, no PhD needed. No math / physics olympiad.</p>

<p>The one thread that is constant in all these MFE grads: not one had undergrad in history or English. They came with degrees in econ, math, engineering etc. Moral: get undergrad quant background, that is, enough math, stat, CS courses to be able to survive MFE, then get MFE and you will be a quant eventually with some apprenticeship. </p>

<p>Is it possible to get quant job with undergrad alone? Yes, many Pton grads do it. But you will face competition from top school MFE grads and your undergrad had better include financial engr. Undergrads in math and physics will find it harder (unless Putnam stars) because they will face competition from MFEs, and top financial engr undergrads from Columbia or Pton and there are only a finite no of jobs.</p>

<p>In sum, unlike traditional Ibanking, where your network helps, in quant jobs, talent matters. It does not matter how you arrive at it. You either know stochastic calculus or you don't. And you could have dropped out of college to learn it on your own. Bill Gates could have been a quant and remained a college drop out.</p>

<p>So, please don't agonize over degree pedigree, be superb at some quant skill and that's all is needed.</p>

18

<p>That's all well and good, but it begs the question: why put yourself through a gruelling program of undergrad math, only to prepare yourself for an MFE, after which you become a quant? Now if you managed to get into a quant fund (as opposed to an ibank) that's when you might smell the huge bonuses. Let's remember, though, that those who get into the uber quant funds are few and far between. If you're a quant at an ibank, you don't get as huge a slice of profits because you don't make trading decisions. The traders do.</p>

<p>I looked through the Columbia MFE alumni list - 1 guy made it to DE Shaw trading, another is trading at HSBC. Everyone else is doing structuring or risk management at an ibank. Same for Haas MFE, where the absence of names like Shaw/Rentec/Citadel/SAC etc. is glaring. (I count around 2 out of 40 doing trading. The rest of the job titles are too vague to discern whether they are actually trading, but I see plenty doing structuring, risk and research.)</p>

<p>Perhaps I'm adopting too boorish a viewpoint here, but it isn't necessary to know stochastic calculus to make tons of money. Likewise, just because you know stochastic calculus doesn't mean you'll make tons of money. Can anyone explain this fascination with quant-ness? I'm very interested. </p>

<p>Is it idealism that causes one to hope that exceptional talent will be rewarded with exceptionally large sums of money? I don't know. I'm sure a certain measure of talent is requisite, but schmoozing/networking is probably more important than we'd like it to be.</p>

19

<p>Shruggingsheep, you don't graduate and go to Citadel, very rarely. You make your bones at an Ibank as a quant, then go to DE Shaw as a quant.</p>

20

<p>actually, ramaswami, I know of atleast 4 undergrads from NYU Stern, 1 from Harvard and 1 from Wharton who have either interned or have full time positions at Citadel Investment Group. 3 of the NYU kids are finance + math double majors and one is a finance/computer science double major...the one from harvard is an econ + applied math double major..I think some of these quant funds do have openings for undergrads with quant backgrounds</p>

<p>
[quote]
Can anyone explain this fascination with quant-ness?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The fascination with quant-ness is no different from the fascination with I-banking that seems to be so prevalent here on CC. Most of the fascination with i banking is due to, in large part, the potential to make quite a lotta money. After seeing so many people use quant techniques to make money off the markets, its not surprising that a fascination with quant finance will follow</p>