i am surprised that so many top engineers from top schools want to take entry level quant or developer jobs. don't they know they have an easier and less stress, more fun life in engineering?

Uhm the potential money coupled with aspirations to go into trading or sales? At the begining of their career quants make what the typical engineer makes at the end of his . If people who went to the same school as you, went on to become MD's at bulge bracket banks within 10 years after grad (with the associated salaries) wouldn't you be tempted to do the same? Sure they graduated at the right time, and were in the right place, which isn't the case right now, but it's amazing how motivating the potential to make a lot of money in a relatively short time rather than doing 9-5 for the rest of your life for a relative pittance can be.

I'm a chemical engineer who has considered a quant career primarily because most chemical engineering jobs are places where I don't want to work. I want to live and work in a city.

I also am not convinced by the "fun life in engineering".To be sure many do have fun and less stress.But engineers get laid off and unemployment at 35 when you've got a family is a lot more stressful than pretty much anything that happens in a bank.Engineering is also ageist, preferring new cheap people who have studied the latest techniques over people with experience.Also of course, if you look at the senior management of most western firms that employ lots of engineers, few if any are engineers themselves.I'm not claiming that finance is some paradise, but most of engineering is shit.

QuoteEngineering is also ageist, preferring new cheap people who have studied the latest techniques over people with experience.You could also have this argument with quant roles as well. Preference for younger people who are cheaper and know the latest techniques from their recent PhD. I guess you would have been paid well in a quant role if you get laid off at 35, but then it's all relative to your lifestyle. Some will be happy earning 20k a year and other still miserable on 500k-1M a year. Stats Guy

QuoteI'm a chemical engineer who has considered a quant career primarily because most chemical engineering jobs are places where I don't want to work. I want to live and work in a city.What is your background and qualifications?Stats Guy

You're right StatGuy, my view is that there are problems with either career path.

It of course depends on the job. Engineering can be cool, specially in a startup. But I agree that in big companies it can be shit. But being a quant can also be really shitty. In some shops, there is not that much of a difference between a quant and the IT guy. The monetary gains are relative, given the high cost of living in Manhattan/London and the fact that many people will be making n times what you make (that was the case before the subprime debacle), and will be more than happy to let you know that from time to time.

IMO quants is a good career path if you less than 40 and have a good hard science PhD, but once you hit 40 you have to evaluate if you still want to be doing over 60 hour weeks and have little time to do anything else in life. An alternative is to become some sort of consultant after 40 and work in your own time or become a contractor. Sure there are quants past 40 in senior management roles, but I am talking about the average case here, i.e. only a few quants who made it to the 1M+ a year mark, as opposed to those who earn between 100-200k.If you are smart you would invest the money you earn when you younger so that if you get made redundant later you have a huge buffer to live on for a few years before you get another role or change sector totally. Being happier in life, in part, comes down to good planning early on in ones career. Arguably those who are stressed out when they get made redundant didn't plan ahead as well as they liked. I guess there is a tendency for some people to act when a situation arises rather than think about what I would do if x, y and z happens.Stats Guy

QuoteOriginally posted by: StatGuyArguably those who are stressed out when they get made redundant didn't plan ahead as well as they liked.I don't think that is the case. I've also found that being stressed out isn't the worst thing that you have to be careful about when you are laid off. Stress isn't always a bad thing and in tolerable amounts it can be quite fun. The real big danger when you get laid off is depression. If you are totally stressed out, all you have to do is to spend a half hour or so watching the Cartoon Network or jogging and that clears your mind so that you can think rationally again. If you end up depressed, then you end up watching the Cartoon Network all day and going nothing useful, which is deadly when you are looking for work.

1.Since quanting has higher volatility than engineering, I would go for quanting even if the returns were the same. And the returns to quanting are higher than in engineering. Let us say you are considering being an engineer in SF, vs quant in NYC. Rents in NYC might be 3x of those in Alabama, but that is irrelevant - SF and NYC rents are comparable, within 50% probably. So being paid 1.5x in NYC versus SF more than makes up for higher rents, as you also save 50% more.2.The career "expiration date" on quants as well as engineers is about 45, ie after that it is tough to find a new job due to competition from the young 'uns. Most quants/engineers move on to less technical, more managerial (soft) roles in their 40s in order to continue their salary growth.But the more important question is: In which job can you sock away enough by 45 to buy your financial freedom, ie buy stuff at whim, travel to conferences, take vacations around the world, send kids to good schools, start and fail at a few businesses, etc. without worrying about monetary consequences?3.Say you plan to sock enough away to escape to a less expensive place. For some one planning to retire in, say China, 10 years as an engineer paid at $125k a year is probably enough. On the other hand, if you think that comparable lifestyles in "currently low cost countries" and in the Western countries will converge in cost, then you need to make more money sooner to let it compound for longer.

QuoteMost quants/engineers move on to less technical, more managerial (soft) roles in their 40s in order to continue their salary growth.Given the very high technical nature of quant work I am sure not many can compete with the young PhDs around late 20s, so quite rightly they move to management roles. My view is that if you were a quant till you were 45 and invested well then you can retire and do some research back at university and live a comfortable lifestyle and have less stress. I am sure there are a few 40+ quants who can keep up with the young and even beat them in terms of speed and creativity. QuoteIf you end up depressed, then you end up watching the Cartoon Network all day and going nothing useful, which is deadly when you are looking for work.Given that in some top banks they give good redundancy you can easily have an easy life for a year and then look for another role a year later (assuming you under 40). The key, for the average person, is to make an inflation corrected $1M and have their house paid off by 45, so then they can virtually do what they want. Remember I said average person, so I am sure $1m will not be enough for some here, but it's a good estimate for the average person IMO.Stats Guy

QuoteOriginally posted by: StatGuyGiven the very high technical nature of quant work I am sure not many can compete with the young PhDs around late 20s, so quite rightly they move to management roles. My view is that if you were a quant till you were 45 and invested well then you can retire and do some research back at university and live a comfortable lifestyle and have less stress. I am sure there are a few 40+ quants who can keep up with the young and even beat them in terms of speed and creativity. If the work involves a lot of coding then I can understand this. But I thought there were different types of quants, such as research quants (e.g. from reading M. Joshi's guide). A talented 40+ researcher in hard science is going to outdo an average new PhD by a factor of 10x or so (at least in theoretical science). Its much different for research quants?

QuoteA talented 40+ researcher in hard science is going to outdo an average new PhD by a factor of 10x or so (at least in theoretical science). Its much different for research quants?True, but the average quant role is mostly programming so with age you gain more experience, but perhaps not as sharp as someone from uni with a PhD. Sure there will be cases where this dosn't hold, but IMO on average it would hold. So the senior quants move on to managerial work usually.Experience is not always going give you an edge, since things move so fast one has to keep up-to-date with the latest stuff. Otherwise you will just fall behind and someone else will soon be doing it better than you. Quant work is certainly mentally demanding coupled with long hours and stress, so you have to question if this is what you want to be doing when you are 40+. I am sure some still love it, but my guess is a fair few move to softer management roles or other areas like sales or marketing etc. Stats Guy

QuoteOriginally posted by: StatGuyQuoteA talented 40+ researcher in hard science is going to outdo an average new PhD by a factor of 10x or so (at least in theoretical science). Its much different for research quants?True, but the average quant role is mostly programming so with age you gain more experience, but perhaps not as sharp as someone from uni with a PhD. Sure there will be cases where this dosn't hold, but IMO on average it would hold. So the senior quants move on to managerial work usually.Experience is not always going give you an edge, since things move so fast one has to keep up-to-date with the latest stuff. Otherwise you will just fall behind and someone else will soon be doing it better than you. Quant work is certainly mentally demanding coupled with long hours and stress, so you have to question if this is what you want to be doing when you are 40+. I am sure some still love it, but my guess is a fair few move to softer management roles or other areas like sales or marketing etc. Stats Guy My point was not that the experienced researcher has an edge, but that talent counts far more than youth in scientific research (perhaps youth + talent > old + talent, but youth + avg. talent < old + high talent). So I thought your comparison might not hold for a "research quant" (as opposed to the "average quant role"), although I know very little myself about these roles.