I wonder why some FE students are Phd in ecomomics, finance....what do u think?thx

of course it is totally _not_ equivalent.

There was a time many years ago when I briefly convinced myself that an MSc from a top program was similar to comprehensive exams in a U.S. Phd program, and in the U.K. system that may still be close to accurate. (I doubt it though.) But as far as MFE/Math Fin programs, these are production level degrees, no matter how rigorous they may be, and desgined to produce practitioners, not researchers. No comparison in my view.

No. Not even close. IMHO, if you got a PhD in a halfway decent subject (natural sciences, math, maybe economics), it's a waste of time doing an MSc in QF. Do an MBA instead, or get a job, or both.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ZmeiGorynychIMHO, if you got a PhD in a halfway decent subject (natural sciences, math, maybe economics), it's a waste of time doing an MSc in QF. Do an MBA instead, or get a job, or both.this has been discussed here many times.There are some locales where employers prefer MFE grads to a PhD in a field such as quantum mechanics or CFD because they've got work experience (internships) and have done grad courses in quant finance as opposed to reading parts of hull on their own.This doesn't appear to be the case in london, but it is the case in some parts of north america, particularly when the local market is saturated with MFEs. There's an article by Derman been linked here several times saying that these days, research jobs as opposed to say risk management jobs are few and far between in north america.It's a little fatuous to tell a PhD that it's a waste of time to do a MFE and to get a job instead: chances are that the PhDs who do MFEs are in those programs because they found they couldn't get a jobQuoteOriginally posted by: KTEBut as far as MFE/Math Fin programs, these are production level degrees, no matter how rigorous they may be, and desgined to produce practitioners, not researchersbut that was Derman's point: the vast majority of jobs are for practitioners, not researchers. Production level jobs as it were.If you're applying for jobs thinking that you'll be able to sit in your office all day looking for interesting problems the way you would at a university, you'll be SOL. Chances are, you'll be spending 2/3 of your time coding up C++, probably writing modules to add to a library.

QuoteIf you're applying for jobs thinking that you'll be able to sit in your office all day looking for interesting problems the way you would at a university, you'll be SOL. Chances are, you'll be spending 2/3 of your time coding up C++, probably writing modules to add to a library.Most industries are like this; here's another statistic I am aware of:Those who write software for pacemakers and medical equipment spend maybe 90% of their time on non-coding jobs...Each new software change has to comply with FDA.So are you saying that IB needs good developers and application programmers?BTW in the old days mathematicians gladly worked as engineers coding (in Fortran) all kinds of scientific applications.

I don't think anyone regard them as equivalent.As ppauper says, work experience of the right kind + a Masters can get you the same number of points.But of course it's a bit like knocking electrons off a gold leaf. You can shine as many low energy photons as you like, but for some jobs, no PhD no interview.

if you dont go for a quant role (instead go for strcturer/trader role) does a phd count against you...????ie do people see you cv and see PhD instantly assume you're suited off as a quant and so wont recruit you???