Hello, I would appreciate any input on the following.I am going back to college and my long-term aim is to do quantitative analysis.For my PhD, I have to choose between theoretical physics and quantitative finance. I find physics more interesting than finance but reckon a PhD in finance may prove better in the long run. What do you think? Am I damaging my chances as a quant by opting for a physics PhD?

As a person who backed out of a physics Ph.D. Here are my $.02.If you truly love physics do it. As a physics Ph.D. student you would be able to prepare yourself to be a quant. I don't think the reverse is true. In addition to you grad courses in physics, you could take all the fun classes they recommend right here on the forum: stochastic calc, corporate finance, an options class, C++, numerical methods, macro and micro, etc. Better yet, if your school has a quant finance program maybe as a grad student you could audit specific classes.

QuoteOriginally posted by: marcosHello, I would appreciate any input on the following.I am going back to college and my long-term aim is to do quantitative analysis.For my PhD, I have to choose between theoretical physics and quantitative finance. I find physics more interesting than finance but reckon a PhD in finance may prove better in the long run. What do you think? Am I damaging my chances as a quant by opting for a physics PhD?If you find physics more interesting than finance why do you want to work in finance? Money probably.It depends how much more you prefer physics to finance. I started off with an undergraduate education in physics and now am doing a PhD in finance. In the early days (say 10 to 20 years ago) you didn't find many people trained in quantitative finance so banks hired the next best thing (theoretical physicists/mathematicians/engineers). Things are different now. In my opinion if your uiltimate aim is to work as a quant and you are sure you will not stay in physics, thendo a PhD in mathematical finance.

Thanks for your input. Making a choice is proving exceedingly difficult. I just somehow feel that by doing a physics PhD I am leaving myself with more options at the end of the day. Also, the danger (for me at least) in committing to a PhD in finance is that I may not be able to get a job as a quant, if that were to happen I'd look pretty stupid with a PhD in quantitative finance. Whereas a PhD in physics leaves me with options. I suppose if someone were to guarantee me a job at the end of it then I'd go along with it but life just isn't like that. I would also have to worry about those people in HR and their psycho-games. Imagine also if I had a PhD in finance but in the interview I get asked by some pure maths guy some obscure (but somehow almost relevant) technical question but can't answer it? Then I'd look pretty dumb. I may be coming across as a bit of a Woody Allen here. Please help!

What makes you think that a PhD in Finance will not prepare you just as well as a PhD in Physics? I do not think it is true at all. You already come from a strong math background. You already know a lot of the maths that you will use as a quant, and you have already developed the ability to learn the stuff that you don't yet know. A PhD in mathematical finance can be just as numerate as a PhD in physics if you choose the right area to research. I come from an engineering background and did my PhD in mathematical finance and I am sure that if I stuck to engineering then my research would have just as numerate/technical as the research I did in my PhD. Don't pick a PhD based on what you want to end up working as. Pick it in something that you enjoy otherwise you will not last. At the end of the day you will have researched something so tiny and specific that it is probably not going to matter what you actually chose. You should be asking yourself whether both your options are as 'technical' as each other. If they are then as far as getting a job as a quant goes, they are on the same level. If you think that the PhD in physics is going to be more numerical/technical/mathematical, then go for the PhD in physics (if you are only interested in preparing for quant work).regards,

QuoteOriginally posted by: DrNO"What makes you think that a PhD in Finance will not prepare you just as well as a PhD in Physics? I do not think it is true at all. [...]"==>Being a quant is not just about doing maths and solving PDE's. What will you learn about the principles of finance while doing physics?...I would say go for the finance PhD."Don't pick a PhD based on what you want to end up working as. Pick it in something that you enjoy otherwise you will not last[...] "==> actually this is true for professionals and not just for PhD students. So if you prefer physics to finance, why do you want to be a quant then? money?

.

Thanks again for the input. I have a lot to sort out in my skull but not much time. As for the kind of physics I'm interested in, I'm interested in quantum field theory. Funnily enough, one of you guys mentioned computational physics - what's wrong with computational physics? I LIKE it. It's probable my research could be along these very lines, computational field theory let's say. Would this not be good enough for a quant job?Anyway, I do also have an interest in quantitative finance, it's just that I am unsure whether it's strong enough to see me through a PhD. One thing's for sure, it is not genuine, not like my interest in physics, it is somewhat forced.Put it this way, if I never had to worry about money and had all the free time in the world, then I doubt I'd spend any of it running over Hull or the like, but physics yes, I could see myself doing that, at least for a while. My interest in physics is genuine.Of course there's another problem - I'm not sure I'm as good as I'd like to be when it comes to physics. Don't get me wrong, lots of my friends have successfully completed PhDs and abilitywise I doubt there's much difference between themselves and me, but that said, what's the point in a career in science when you ain't THAT good? At least as a quant they PAY you to do the stuff, not that I think I could handle.Another problem is that I don't want to put all my eggs in the one basket, four years down the line I don't how I'll feel about the prospect of quant work.To anyone reading this who actually interviews quants - would you necessarily dismiss an interview with a PhD in theoretical physics in favour of a PhD in quantitative finance? Also, what would you make of someone with a PhD in quantitative finance?

it all depends on the interviewer. I would say that currently there are more interviewers who are prejudiced towards theoretical physics over math finance than the other way around.

Is this due to change I wonder or remain the same? It is as if there is some kind of elitism going on. You nkow the hierarchy:String theoristsfield theoristsEveryone else?Marcos: I sense great doubt coming from your keyboard, what gives?