QuoteOriginally posted by: flankWho said I harbored contempt for ph.ds from top tiers? In fact those degrees are obviously something to be proud of and they are especially useful for those who want to pursue academic careers. My only source of contention is that quantitative finance might be barred to those who are potentially more qualified but nevertheless rejected based solely on name recognition.However, sarcasm aside, you are correct: thinking about publishing applied work relevant to quant finance is more important than talking in this thread especially considering the thread has pretty much been exhausted anyway, but this job ad was too good to pass up considering that the position requires only a bachelors degree despite all the ivy league claims.After several posts, it seems no one has clarified the most basic point which is at the root of your misunderstanding. Academic jobs are extremely hard to get, even for PhD candidates of top universities. Why? Faculty-student ratio and lack of funding. In physics and maths, you need to go through multiple rounds of postdoc to have a chance, and even then it's not guaranteed. See this article for more. From my own experience at a top engineering school, I can assure you that getting a tenure track faculty position, especially for a candidate with a theoretical/mathematical background, is an ultracompetitive rat race. Consequently, there's a large supply of PhD candidates in science and engineering at the top schools looking at other avenues which require analytical and programming ability. E.g., you know what. Some of them may even have some qualifications besides the school name......in any case, as ace2002 points out, maybe you should focus on your PhD first. You are at an inherent disadvantage, and should at least recognize that. Publishing in a known finance journal, etc. may be a good way to improve your chances.

Thats an interesting article, there are a couple of upsides - like the opportunity to travel and live in another country for PhD or PostDoc, but most of whats written rings pretty true.

You wrote this as if my intention was to enter academia, but the truth is that my stated goal for a long, long time, whether in this forum or otherwise, has been to run away from academia and into industry. Perhaps later in life taking on a simple teaching job with few responsibilities and alot of vacation time will be appealing, but until I'm old and withering, I want to go where the sex is at.That's why my intention is to just finish this ph.d where I'm at without transferring to a higher school and extending my schooling by two years. Furthermore, that's why I'm taking fields in monetary policy and finance despite the fact that I'm in the economics department. For someone continuing in academia, spending time in the finance department is a bad option because doing so turns a doc. candidate into a jack of all trades but master of none. However, for someone entering business, taking a field in finance is grreat because the candidate can thereby a) diversify his skill set and b) produce applied publications that appeal directly to business.One final observation is that the article was referring to math & physics ph.ds. Although the thesis of the article almost surely holds for ph.ds in most other categories as well, my situation is unique because a) I will have probably two or three internships, b) will have passed two or three actuarial exams, c) will have a diversified, *highly* applied skill set, and d) will have an economics degree as opposed to a purely scientific degree where the latter doesn't really impart any business related knowledge.QuoteOriginally posted by: marvinQuoteOriginally posted by: flankWho said I harbored contempt for ph.ds from top tiers? In fact those degrees are obviously something to be proud of and they are especially useful for those who want to pursue academic careers. My only source of contention is that quantitative finance might be barred to those who are potentially more qualified but nevertheless rejected based solely on name recognition.However, sarcasm aside, you are correct: thinking about publishing applied work relevant to quant finance is more important than talking in this thread especially considering the thread has pretty much been exhausted anyway, but this job ad was too good to pass up considering that the position requires only a bachelors degree despite all the ivy league claims.After several posts, it seems no one has clarified the most basic point which is at the root of your misunderstanding. Academic jobs are extremely hard to get, even for PhD candidates of top universities. Why? Faculty-student ratio and lack of funding. In physics and maths, you need to go through multiple rounds of postdoc to have a chance, and even then it's not guaranteed. See this article for more. From my own experience at a top engineering school, I can assure you that getting a tenure track faculty position, especially for a candidate with a theoretical/mathematical background, is an ultracompetitive rat race. Consequently, there's a large supply of PhD candidates in science and engineering at the top schools looking at other avenues which require analytical and programming ability. E.g., you know what. Some of them may even have some qualifications besides the school name......in any case, as ace2002 points out, maybe you should focus on your PhD first. You are at an inherent disadvantage, and should at least recognize that. Publishing in a known finance journal, etc. may be a good way to improve your chances.

QuoteOriginally posted by: flankYou wrote this as if my intention was to enter academia, but the truth is that my stated goal for a long, long time, whether in this forum or otherwise, has been to run away from academia and into industry. Perhaps later in life taking on a simple teaching job with few responsibilities and alot of vacation time will be appealing, but until I'm old and withering, I want to go where the sex is at.If you want to go where the sex is at why do you want to be a quant. It's mainly monkey work with no glamour, but hey I guess some girls might like that!

QuoteOriginally posted by: flankYou wrote this as if my intention was to enter academia, but the truth is that my stated goal for a long, long time, whether in this forum or otherwise, has been to run away from academia and into industry. Perhaps later in life taking on a simple teaching job with few responsibilities and alot of vacation time will be appealing, but until I'm old and withering, I want to go where the sex is at.That's why my intention is to just finish this ph.d where I'm at without transferring to a higher school and extending my schooling by two years. Furthermore, that's why I'm taking fields in monetary policy and finance despite the fact that I'm in the economics department. For someone continuing in academia, spending time in the finance department is a bad option because doing so turns a doc. candidate into a jack of all trades but master of none. However, for someone entering business, taking a field in finance is grreat because the candidate can thereby a) diversify his skill set and b) produce applied publications that appeal directly to business.One final observation is that the article was referring to math & physics ph.ds. Although the thesis of the article almost surely holds for ph.ds in most other categories as well, my situation is unique because a) I will have probably two or three internships, b) will have passed two or three actuarial exams, c) will have a diversified, *highly* applied skill set, and d) will have an economics degree as opposed to a purely scientific degree where the latter doesn't really impart any business related knowledge.You still don't understand. What marvin try to tell you is that there are quite a number of good PhDs with highly quatitative skills than you will choose quant finance rather than acdemia as career, as oppose to what you have been saying. The consequence of that is: you will face fierce competition in the QF job market and your school name is going to hurt. Nothing from him was about your future career intention.After reading your "unique" situation, I honestly cannot see any uniquenss. Besides, business related knowledge cannot be acquired through economic or any textbook and economics degree does not seem to be superior than scientific degree in terms of securing QF jobs. Look like you do underestimate your competitors (or overestimate yourself). Take the advice from marvin - spending more time on your research rather than fancying so many internships (banks only accept penultimate year PhDs for their internship program - does anyone tell you that?)

I remain unconvinced about the supposed existence of a ph.d tsunami flooding the market. Americans just don't get ph.ds. I'm not speculating here -- numerous heads of economics & finance departments from many many universities I've contacted report that only the foreigners are taking ph.ds. American businesses for whatever reason are looking for U.S. citizens. A large part of the reason is probably the fact that obtaining worker visas is difficult for foreign students so even if they do get hired there's no guarantee that a) they'll stay put and b) they'll even be permitted to work. The point here is that the Ph.ds are not aiming for industry; they're aiming to pump out theoretical publications that are great for academia but are useless for industry. Nobody's gonna give two shakes about epsilon neighborhoods and some esoteric econometrics theory. That's why the fact that I'm diversifying my skill set is so relevant, but the mention that my situation is "unique" was meant to compare myself to the vast majority of academic washouts rather than others who are pursuing the same skill set diversification. Business will care about what you can get done for them. In my department, I'm one of just two people who are interested in industry, and he's the only other American!Here's my other point: all of these opinions being offered to me are in the context of obtaining a quant job immediately after graduating, but why is this a necessity? Why can't I just go work someplace else for awhile such as but not limited to actuarial science, and then apply to quant jobs? Suppose I work for a year as an actuary earning a healthy income, and then apply to a quant job. Suppose further that my competition is someone who graduated from northwestern who has zero work experience. Do you suppose that they will favor that person based on university name recognition alone? No one has ever addressed this kind of scenario despite the fact that I've conjectured it repeatedly. Another interesting fact is that none of the naysayers is accounting for the quant job posting requiring no more than a bachelor's degree (ffs!) in a quantitative discipline. That's not the only one of its kind I've seen either by the way. Still, there is naught but silence on the subject.On a similar topic, internships need not be banking internships. There are internships working in airline industries, c++ programming, actuarial science, the federal reserve, the medical industry, etc. etc., so joe blow from northwestern (with nothing but a narrowly focused piece of research) and I can walk up to a banking employer. He can say, "uh, yeah. I learned about this great new macroeconomics theory..." and I can say, "I have experience coordinating with a team working at an airline company and then I passed the first two actuarial exams and worked in life insurance gaining all kinds of knowledge translatable to quant finance and my dissertation is a synthesis of finance and econometrics specifically designed for quant and I have courses in Excel, VB, a minor in computer science, and a TA position writing statistical software in c++ and matlab. By the way, I can speak English."QuoteOriginally posted by: ace2002QuoteOriginally posted by: flankYou wrote this as if my intention was to enter academia, but the truth is that my stated goal for a long, long time, whether in this forum or otherwise, has been to run away from academia and into industry. Perhaps later in life taking on a simple teaching job with few responsibilities and alot of vacation time will be appealing, but until I'm old and withering, I want to go where the sex is at.That's why my intention is to just finish this ph.d where I'm at without transferring to a higher school and extending my schooling by two years. Furthermore, that's why I'm taking fields in monetary policy and finance despite the fact that I'm in the economics department. For someone continuing in academia, spending time in the finance department is a bad option because doing so turns a doc. candidate into a jack of all trades but master of none. However, for someone entering business, taking a field in finance is grreat because the candidate can thereby a) diversify his skill set and b) produce applied publications that appeal directly to business.One final observation is that the article was referring to math & physics ph.ds. Although the thesis of the article almost surely holds for ph.ds in most other categories as well, my situation is unique because a) I will have probably two or three internships, b) will have passed two or three actuarial exams, c) will have a diversified, *highly* applied skill set, and d) will have an economics degree as opposed to a purely scientific degree where the latter doesn't really impart any business related knowledge.You still don't understand. What marvin try to tell you is that there are quite a number of good PhDs with highly quatitative skills than you will choose quant finance rather than acdemia as career, as oppose to what you have been saying. The consequence of that is: you will face fierce competition in the QF job market and your school name is going to hurt. Nothing from him was about your future career intention.After reading your "unique" situation, I honestly cannot see any uniquenss. Besides, business related knowledge cannot be acquired through economic or any textbook and economics degree does not seem to be superior than scientific degree in terms of securing QF jobs. Look like you do underestimate your competitors (or overestimate yourself). Take the advice from marvin - spending more time on your research rather than fancying so many internships (banks only accept penultimate year PhDs for their internship program - does anyone tell you that?)

Quote The point here is that the Ph.ds are not aiming for industry; they're aiming to pump out theoretical publications that are great for academia but are useless for industry. Nobody's gonna give two shakes about epsilon neighborhoods and some esoteric econometrics theory. It's interesting you say that. A lot of PhD's "pump out theoretical publications that are great for academia but are useless for industry, " because they need to get a PhD. ( I can't wait to see your groundbreaking, highly applied thesis on the econometrics of option pricing.) But they still aim for industry. Quite the contradiction, isn't it? QuoteOn a similar topic, internships need not be banking internships. There are internships working in airline industries, c++ programming, actuarial science, the federal reserve, the medical industry, etc. etc., so joe blow from northwestern (with nothing but a narrowly focused piece of research) and I can walk up to a banking employer. He can say, "uh, yeah. I learned about this great new macroeconomics theory..." and I can say, "I have experience coordinating with a team working at an airline company and then I passed the first two actuarial exams and worked in life insurance gaining all kinds of knowledge translatable to quant finance and my dissertation is a synthesis of finance and economics specifically designed for quant and I have courses in Excel, VB, a minor in computer science, and a TA position writing statistical software in c++ and matlab. By the way, I can speak English."You've convinced me. Too bad I'm not a prospective employer, but I wish you the best of luck. Oh, and by the way, if you apply for a job opening for an undergraduate, you may want to keep your PhD hidden in your back pocket, because there's such a thing as being overqualified for a job.

ok, so they have their ph.d with a theoretical dissertation, and what does all that theory have to do with the price of cheese?? Perhaps theory is favored more in the quant field, but I'm being told by professors both in my department and departments of higher universities that industry doesn't want heavy theory. That's why I chose to take a field in monetary policy instead of econometrics on top of the three basic courses. Any additional econometrics knowledge that remains useful can be found reading other publications or books detailing various uses for essential econometrics. Therefore, to answer your question, no, it's not a contradiction. All of my fellow classmates are busy equipping themselves for academia fully acknowledging that what they learn will be useful only in academia. Just like the article stated, however, if they can't find a job teaching/researching, then they will come to the industry line where I'm standing and take a number. Theory is super for benefitting society. Everybody gets a small piece of the pie. If the researcher is a philanthropist, then his efforts will be rewarded in full. If the researcher is a future businessman, however, then under most circumstances, applied was the route he should have taken.p.s. or maybe I might not want to keep my ph.d in my back pocket since the job ad. stated that a graduate degree was preferred but not required.QuoteOriginally posted by: marvinQuote The point here is that the Ph.ds are not aiming for industry; they're aiming to pump out theoretical publications that are great for academia but are useless for industry. Nobody's gonna give two shakes about epsilon neighborhoods and some esoteric econometrics theory. It's interesting you say that. A lot of PhD's "pump out theoretical publications that are great for academia but are useless for industry, " because they need to get a PhD. ( I can't wait to see your groundbreaking, highly applied thesis on the econometrics of option pricing.) But they still aim for industry. Quite the contradiction, isn't it? QuoteOn a similar topic, internships need not be banking internships. There are internships working in airline industries, c++ programming, actuarial science, the federal reserve, the medical industry, etc. etc., so joe blow from northwestern (with nothing but a narrowly focused piece of research) and I can walk up to a banking employer. He can say, "uh, yeah. I learned about this great new macroeconomics theory..." and I can say, "I have experience coordinating with a team working at an airline company and then I passed the first two actuarial exams and worked in life insurance gaining all kinds of knowledge translatable to quant finance and my dissertation is a synthesis of finance and economics specifically designed for quant and I have courses in Excel, VB, a minor in computer science, and a TA position writing statistical software in c++ and matlab. By the way, I can speak English."You've convinced me. Too bad I'm not a prospective employer, but I wish you the best of luck. Oh, and by the way, if you apply for a job opening for an undergraduate, you may want to keep your PhD hidden in your back pocket, because there's such a thing as being overqualified for a job.

flank,There is no point to deduce your own theory about how the world works. You do what you think is right to do and best of luck to you.P.S. I have checked with Wharton about your *fact* that PhD students there have to sign 5 years teaching or research agreement ----- are you curious of what their answer was?

Indeed I am curious to know if what they informed you differs from what they informed meQuoteOriginally posted by: ace2002flank,There is no point to deduce your own theory about how the world works. You do what you think is right to do and best of luck to you.P.S. I have checked with Wharton about your *fact* that PhD students there have to sign 5 years teaching or research agreement ----- are you curious of what their answer was?

QuoteOriginally posted by: ace2002flank,There is no point to deduce your own theory about how the world works. You do what you think is right to do and best of luck to you.P.S. I have checked with Wharton about your *fact* that PhD students there have to sign 5 years teaching or research agreement ----- are you curious of what their answer was?Such a contract would be 1) illegal, and 2) I have known 2 grad students who have interned at banks.

It is amusing to see some one so hard to convince even with actual facts. Maybe eventual reality will do.top school or not aside, search "physics" in this career forum returns two pageful of threads, search "phd", guess what, 11 pages. and that does not include the spelling "ph.d.". that says something about the group who wants to enter this field, even though it might not be as big as a "tsunami". You may want to come up with more ways to use this forum as source of data and address your question yourself. good exercise of applied work. afterall, even citigroup employs only a few hundred ph.d.'s and I guess on average the few thousand hedge funds have only one or two ph.d. each, throw in the mutual funds and morgage companies, the number is not terribly big compare to how many phd's the few thousand acredited universities in the US churn out every year. Now how many new opennings each year for fresh grad's, or those without experience in the field? does not take a tsunami to flood the pond. You may want to carry this exercise to the end yourself, this is what they called "market size" question, could pop up in interviews. You need to come out of your small world of econ/finance students. talk to people in physics, math, engineering. by the way, many places prefer those than econ background anyway, no matter you did theory or applied. And I m puzzled why you thing monetary policy is more relevant than econometrics if you want to become a quant. Try appear less cocky and listen more, it is called communication skill and being a good team player. the problem with hiding your ph.d. is how to explain away to 4,5 years' gap in your resume.

QuoteOriginally posted by: flankIndeed I am curious to know if what they informed you differs from what they informed meDo you still expect people here to believe that you actually got that ridiculous information directly from Wharton?BTW, Wharton replied that your information is *ludicrous*. Do you need to see the actually copy of their reply?

yes. paste it here plz, not because I don't believe you per se but because I want to cross-reference.QuoteOriginally posted by: ace2002QuoteOriginally posted by: flankIndeed I am curious to know if what they informed you differs from what they informed meDo you still expect people here to believe that you actually got that ridiculous information directly from Wharton?BTW, Wharton replied that your information is *ludicrous*. Do you need to see the actually copy of their reply?

QuoteOriginally posted by: flankyes. paste it here plz, not because I don't believe you per se but because I want to cross-reference.Enough bluffing! A copy of their reply has PM to you. Now if you still think that the E-mail reply is fake. Go to cross reference directly with Wharton *again*. I will leave you here.