I am not sure about the MIT choice. PhD schoolmate of mine from the top-notch university in UK also got into Lehmann as FI quant research analyst (not associate!). His job now is far away from quant developer. PhD in MIT may easily take over 4 years. The name of the school may help but there is no guarantee that you can get back to the industry. If your job title is pure "quant developer", it may not be that good but I doubt it is the case. Bearing the title of Lehman quant research analyst with over 4 years experience, you should have much better understanding on how the business works, as compared with a MIT PhD in operation research, say working on die-hard econometric problems with Andrew Lo or some high dimensional stochastic optimization problem with Bersitmas.What major do you have does not really matter in finance, I met a lady who major in history become a very competent banking sector analyst. Once you get into the bank, you can learn the rope by yourself if you are good. You don't need a MIT PhD to prove that you have the ability to learn once you have the offer on hand.

My 2pennies - LEH is a good firm that does and encourages peope to transfer around. I know of people there who were in BO functions and were moved to trading (although do not know specifically about their Tokyo outfit). However what do you want to do? You can go to LEH and you will have a career in banking - you might become a trader - you might decide you don't want to do it, but until redundancies happen (or my make some massive f* up) you will be in IB.However if you go to MIT (and you are motivated towards your research, and you like the academic life), all the things Anthis says is correct - however you won't be in IB, you will be research - you might be able to make it back in but then again you might not, also you might not want to....

If trading is your career goal you may be better off taking the Lehman offer. For most trading jobs you need a PhD and few traders will actually have one. What is your job title, analyst or quant developer ? If the former, the Lehman offer would be very tempting, if the latter, maybe not.

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmax however you won't be in IB, you will be research - you might be able to make it back in but then again you might not, also you might not want to....Even if there will be an inflation of PhDs by that time, i guess an MIT PhD will always have priority, subject to his mobility restrictions.

QuoteOriginally posted by: AnthisQuoteOriginally posted by: rmax however you won't be in IB, you will be research - you might be able to make it back in but then again you might not, also you might not want to....Even if there will be an inflation of PhDs by that time, i guess an MIT PhD will always have priority, subject to his mobility restrictions.It'll probably get you an interview, but so would a Phd from any of the other two dozen top schools. I don't think anyone is going to hire someone purely because they have an MIT Phd. Also, TS wants to get a trading job. To most traders, Andrew Lo may as well be Joe Bloggs.

I'm also starting at LEH in interest trading this year. I'm not sure which desk I'll be starting at, but nevertheless my long-term goal is to move onto an interest rate exotics desk. What should I do to maximise my chances? I am considering doing the CQF (my undergraduate degree was in in Maths and Finance).

At least in programming MIT is not the best http://icpc.baylor.edu/icpc/Finals/v2/d ... ge=results Top 3:1. Russia (St Petersburg)2, USA (MIT)3. Russia (Izhevsk / Ural mountains)23. Oxford 31. Caltech47. Cornellwhat is going on??!

QuoteOriginally posted by: ronwiseAt least in programming MIT is not the best what is going on??!At least in programming, in 2008, one team of programmers from MIT is not the best.How can you infer anything from this single observation?

It is not a single observation, there is a competition history since 1993...http://icpc.baylor.edu/past/default.htm

It's a no brainer. I know people (from IIT-M) who went this route joining brand name companies but ended up getting stuck later. A job at Lehman may look like a great opportunity right now but you will need to arm yourself with an advanced degree later anyway. A bachelors degree from IIT and a PhD from MIT will prove to be better in the long run. You will learn more, meet great peers and build better long term relationships, maybe even discover that finance is not your true calling. That's better than spending time as an excel jockey and navigating office politics. You can always get experience through internships and such (who knows...maybe one of your profs starts a hedge fund and needs cheap labor). Talk to your hostel/institute alumni who will be able to help you make a more informed decision. Congratulations.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ronwiseAt least in programming MIT is not the best http://icpc.baylor.edu/icpc/Finals/v2/d ... ge=results Top 3:1. Russia (St Petersburg)2, USA (MIT)3. Russia (Izhevsk / Ural mountains)23. Oxford 31. Caltech47. Cornellwhat is going on??!What's going on? Some departments are better in programming than others. The 2006 winners solved these problems (they are not database-type questions but would seem to demand insight into data structures and maths).

QuoteTalk to your hostel/institute alumni who will be able to help you make a more informed decision.twofish ?

QuoteA lot of people are choosing to pursue Phd's right now because the job situation is pretty dire. It will be interesting to see if there is sufficient demand for all these newly minted Phd's in five years time.Good point. My feeling, going by some of the views here, is that graduates are willing to put themselves through over 3 years worth of academic research for the ultimate goal of becoming a quant. You have to remember those who undertake a PhD program and successfully complete it are mostly the ones who had a real passion to become an academic researcher in their chosen area and to publish enough papers in top journals to ultimately become prof. Indeed some will never make it that far, but certainly that should be the mentality before undertaking any serious research program like a PhD. Otherwise you will have a high chance of failure or not producing good quality research in an academic context. A PhD is not like a course or masters where you are spoon-fed the information, but rather carrying out your own independent research. If the ultimate goal is to do a PhD for a quant job in the end that passion may fade half way through the program. It's a tough process getting a PhD and I am sure those on this forum with Ph.Ds can relate. The financial rewards following a PhD should be seen as a bonus and not be the sole incentive to undertake such a programStats Guy

QuoteA lot of people are choosing to pursue Phd's right now because the job situation is pretty dire. It will be interesting to see if there is sufficient demand for all these newly minted Phd's in five years time.Good point. My feeling, going by some of the views here, is that graduates are willing to put themselves through over 3 years worth of academic research for the ultimate goal of becoming a quant. You have to remember those who undertake a PhD program and successfully complete it are mostly the ones who had a real passion to become an academic researcher in their chosen area and to publish enough papers in top journals to ultimately become prof. Indeed some will never make it that far, but certainly that should be the mentality before undertaking any serious research program like a PhD. Otherwise you will have a high chance of failure or not producing good quality research in an academic context. A PhD is not like a course or masters where you are spoon-fed the information, but rather carrying out your own independent research. If the ultimate goal is to do a PhD for a quant job in the end that passion may fade half way through the program. It's a tough process getting a PhD and I am sure those on this forum with Ph.Ds can relate. The financial rewards following a PhD should be seen as a bonus and not be the sole incentive to undertake such a programStats Guy

QuoteOriginally posted by: perseusIt's a no brainer. I know people (from IIT-M) who went this route joining brand name companies but ended up getting stuck later. A job at Lehman may look like a great opportunity right now but you will need to arm yourself with an advanced degree later anyway. A bachelors degree from IIT and a PhD from MIT will prove to be better in the long run. You will learn more, meet great peers and build better long term relationships, maybe even discover that finance is not your true calling. That's better than spending time as an excel jockey and navigating office politics. You can always get experience through internships and such (who knows...maybe one of your profs starts a hedge fund and needs cheap labor). Talk to your hostel/institute alumni who will be able to help you make a more informed decision. Congratulations.================At entry or lower levels, a MS or ABD may be fine and even be enough to move up to a senior position in the company. The problem really starts when you change companies and want a [more] 'Senior' position and they say they want a PhD with 10 years of experience and maybe some managerial work [maybe no more than a project leader of a quant group]. You may have the latter two qualifications but if you are looking for a Senior Position or even head of the Quant group and they have several PhDs who have been there or in the industry for 5+ years [even though their experience does not rank with yours], it may be the firm [and quants] will ask why you over their [or other candidates] WITH PhDs and experience. An issue that even those who did all their PhD course work, and even ABD may face is 'why did you not finish?' There are many good answers but those doing the hiring will always wonder about. Hopefully you will get far enough in the interview process to give your reasons.