This is a continuation of http://www.wilmott.com/messageview.cfm? ... did=31381I don't think that there any anonymous quants actively posting on this thread. DCFC is a headhunter. I'm not a quant. Neither of us are particularly anonymous. I'm not terribly qualified to comment on what one should do to get a quantitative finance job, since I've been a spectacular failure at this. Part of the reason that my job search has been a spectacular failure is that I'm very picky about the jobs that I'm willing to take, which means that 95% of employers and 99% headhunters very quickly give up on me. (The term of the art is that the "fit" is not there.) Also there's really no point in trying to impress me. People who try to impress me, don't impress me.However, I think I do have something useful to say about the usefulness of a Ph.D. in the grand scheme of job-hunting and in the grand scheme of living life in general. I've just found that having a Ph.D. an extremely useful card to play in getting what I want out of life, and that I'm in *MUCH* better shape with it than without it. Without a Ph.D., I would have *zero* chance of getting into quantitative finance at age 35, and I suspect that without a Ph.D. it will be harder for jksaid to break out of the quantitative finance at 35, 40, 45, 55....(Also, jksaid did point out something important and that is that your average Ph.D. isn't probably smarter or mathematically more adept than your average Masters. Quite true....)Your mileage may vary.....

You can either do a job or you can't. A PhD is a useful indicator that you have what it takes to be a quant. It is not a useful indicator that you will be able to deal satisfactorily with people, especially if just emerging from the university environment.

>> This is a continuation of why would you shift a thread so people can no longer read the old messages ?

The title of this thread is more descriptive.

You can either do a job or you can't. A PhD is a useful indicator that you have what it takes to be a quant. It is not a useful indicator that you will be able to deal satisfactorily with people, especially if just emerging from the university environment.Perhaps people skills should be taught as part of the CQF ?Stuff like "How to politely tell your boss that his cherished model is just bollocks.""How to get credit for other people's work""Forming a faction for beginners""Sounding interested""Equilibrium methods for style vs substance"

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauper>> This is a continuation of why would you shift a thread so people can no longer read the old messages ?PhD training?

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauper>> This is a continuation of why would you shift a thread so people can no longer read the old messages ?ppauper: don't mind this but why would you ask that question.... don't you delete all your old messages anyway...

Hey,Just new to this forum (applied maths student contemplating changing fields and doing a PhD a quant area). Interesting how this thread has evolved.I dont know where most of you are from (Australia personally), but when you speak about the benefits of a PhD, do you mean the American (do a lot of graduate subjects) or the more UK/Oz (spend 3 to 4 years writing a thesis) PhD? Also, I was to attempt to look for a work in the states, would they favour US over Oz or UK PhD's? I'm about a month away finishing my, what the English would call a masters, in applied maths and I'm wondering if you I should jump into a writing PhD in a new area. Perhaps this deserves another thread.

I think the US phd is more profitable since usually student who get their phd from good universities is us have better publications while in other countries (ex. france) it take them more time to access top reviews. Also in Us doctoral program, there is 2years studies + 2 years for the dissertation while in france, 3-4 years only for dissertaion. I would recommend only US PhD or abroad PhD with excellent and dynamic supervior as a compensation.

The American Ph.D. also require many years of dissertation writing (5 for me). The coursework for most American Ph.D. programs are in the first two years, after which they hand you a Masters. After that, you take the qualification exams, after which there are no real courses.There are courses listed in the transcript but these are purely notational for bookeepping purposes (literally). In many schools, teaching salaries and course requirements are based on the number of courses taught, and so they notational courses on the transcript for Ph.D. students get put into a pool which are divided among the faculty.

My friend, an Aussie PhD student doing Quantum Control (SDE's and QM), just returned from a short trip to Caltech. He has been raving on about the US PhD system and how it really prepares you for good research in academia etc.But if you were a would-be quant in, say in NY, would they rather a US over a UK PhD, or are they indifferent?5 years thesis + 2 years subjects = hell of a time. Some of the US PhD decriptions on the web give me the impression that they're only for people wishing to pursue an academic career.

After the first two years, a Ph.D. program is largely what you and your thesis advisor want to make of it.I wouldn't put too much emphasis on web descriptions. In a very real sense, you aren't getting your degree from X University, you are getting your degree from group Z which is led by Professor Y who happens to work at X University.