So I have a problem, and I don't know if anyone here could give their opinions? I have a graduate offer at a bank in London, it involves rotations through all different areas including S&T, asset management, research etc for a period of 2 years. I am very keen in pursuing a career as a quant however, and have an application in for imperial msc. In applied mathematics. My issue is this: should I accept the role, and try and push to enter quant, though I have sound computer programming knowledge but obviously my undergrad will be my only qualification, no msc. Or phd. I could try and postpone my offer for a year if I get accepted, then enter the graduate role. Or thirdly I could not accept the job and enter the msc, of course only if I got accepted into the msc in the first place.My problem arises because the biggest issue for becoming a quant is getting your foot into the door, which of course I now have the amazing opportunity to. However I would hate, further down the line to regret not doing my msc. I could alternatively see if my employer would allow me to complete my studies, but I am not sure if this is normal practice, or even possible! So basically I'm looking g for opinions and advice!Appreciate all your helpA

Enter the grad role and take the MSc later, like you say getting your foot in the door is the hard bit here.

QuoteOriginally posted by: HansiEnter the grad role and take the MSc later, like you say getting your foot in the door is the hard bit here.+1Also, being able to move between different roles will also give you a better idea if the MSc you have applied is suitable for the area you want to move to (or you might very well find another area you are interested in when you are in the bank). From my (limited) experience, a lot of what they teach in University are not applicable in real life, and you might find that to move to the area you are interested in, a PhD is more appropriate and the MSc adds no value to your CV at all.

QuoteOriginally posted by: HansiEnter the grad role and take the MSc later, like you say getting your foot in the door is the hard bit here.+1

Join the 2 year rotation, then decide whether you want to be a quant, banker, investment manager, trader and accordingly do MSc or MBA or PhD or continue on the job.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ArthurDentJoin the 2 year rotation, then decide whether you want to be a quant, banker, investment manager, trader and accordingly do MSc or MBA or PhD or continue on the job.PhD for investment manager?

A lot of investment management is just making yourself looking good to rich people so you can increase AUM for 2 & 20. PhDs, research papers, economic viewpoint articles etc are perfect for that.

What if you fail to get a proper role after finishing your MSc? You can always move around after you have some FO experience under your belt anyway. For any recent graduate it is always good to open your eye wide and explore other potential opportunities

QuoteOriginally posted by: BankingAnalystWhat if you fail to get a proper role after finishing your MSc?MSc should only be done for changing careers... An MSc is no more qualified than a BSc, neither of them has done independent research, it is only the number of lectures they have attended that is different, and most of those are irrelevant in the workplace.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ArthurDentAn MSc is no more qualified than a BSc, neither of them has done independent research, it is only the number of lectures they have attended that is different, and most of those are irrelevant in the workplace.I disagree. There's a huge difference in mathematical maturity between a BSc and an MSc in mathematics, in 3 years you don't cover the more advanced stuff. And a good MSc thesis should contain original research (not "independent" - you don't do independent research until after PhD, that's why you have a thesis advisor).

QuoteOriginally posted by: Awalton89So I have a problem, and I don't know if anyone here could give their opinions? I have a graduate offer at a bank in London, it involves rotations through all different areas including S&T, asset management, research etc for a period of 2 years. I am very keen in pursuing a career as a quant however, and have an application in for imperial msc. In applied mathematics. My issue is this: should I accept the role, and try and push to enter quant, though I have sound computer programming knowledge but obviously my undergrad will be my only qualification, no msc. Or phd. I could try and postpone my offer for a year if I get accepted, then enter the graduate role. Or thirdly I could not accept the job and enter the msc, of course only if I got accepted into the msc in the first place.My problem arises because the biggest issue for becoming a quant is getting your foot into the door, which of course I now have the amazing opportunity to. However I would hate, further down the line to regret not doing my msc. I could alternatively see if my employer would allow me to complete my studies, but I am not sure if this is normal practice, or even possible! So basically I'm looking g for opinions and advice!Appreciate all your helpADude,Take the graduate role - when you get there you'll see why quant is a sh*t idea.

QuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaQuoteOriginally posted by: ArthurDentAn MSc is no more qualified than a BSc, neither of them has done independent research, it is only the number of lectures they have attended that is different, and most of those are irrelevant in the workplace.I disagree. There's a huge difference in mathematical maturity between a BSc and an MSc in mathematics, in 3 years you don't cover the more advanced stuff. And a good MSc thesis should contain original research (not "independent" - you don't do independent research until after PhD, that's why you have a thesis advisor).Ah yes, I keep forgetting that there is a world of difference between US and UK.In the US, BS is 4 years, and the better students spend the last year or two taking graduate level classes since they placed out of the simpler lower level classes in high school AP.MS is just more classes, and the thesis option essentially is for those who drop out of PhDs and want to use their research.PhD is not time bound, typically lasts 4 or 5 years and the PhD advisors advise - they don't do your work for you.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ArthurDentQuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaQuoteOriginally posted by: ArthurDentAn MSc is no more qualified than a BSc, neither of them has done independent research, it is only the number of lectures they have attended that is different, and most of those are irrelevant in the workplace.I disagree. There's a huge difference in mathematical maturity between a BSc and an MSc in mathematics, in 3 years you don't cover the more advanced stuff. And a good MSc thesis should contain original research (not "independent" - you don't do independent research until after PhD, that's why you have a thesis advisor).Ah yes, I keep forgetting that there is a world of difference between US and UK.In the US, BS is 4 years, and the better students spend the last year or two taking graduate level classes since they placed out of the simpler lower level classes in high school AP.MS is just more classes, and the thesis option essentially is for those who drop out of PhDs and want to use their research.PhD is not time bound, typically lasts 4 or 5 years and the PhD advisors advise - they don't do your work for you.Sometimes they don't even advise.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ArthurDentQuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaQuoteOriginally posted by: ArthurDentAn MSc is no more qualified than a BSc, neither of them has done independent research, it is only the number of lectures they have attended that is different, and most of those are irrelevant in the workplace.I disagree. There's a huge difference in mathematical maturity between a BSc and an MSc in mathematics, in 3 years you don't cover the more advanced stuff. And a good MSc thesis should contain original research (not "independent" - you don't do independent research until after PhD, that's why you have a thesis advisor).Ah yes, I keep forgetting that there is a world of difference between US and UK.In the US, BS is 4 years, and the better students spend the last year or two taking graduate level classes since they placed out of the simpler lower level classes in high school AP.MS is just more classes, and the thesis option essentially is for those who drop out of PhDs and want to use their research.PhD is not time bound, typically lasts 4 or 5 years and the PhD advisors advise - they don't do your work for you.Right, but calling PhD work "independent" is ridiculous.

QuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaQuoteOriginally posted by: ArthurDentQuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaQuoteOriginally posted by: ArthurDentAn MSc is no more qualified than a BSc, neither of them has done independent research, it is only the number of lectures they have attended that is different, and most of those are irrelevant in the workplace.I disagree. There's a huge difference in mathematical maturity between a BSc and an MSc in mathematics, in 3 years you don't cover the more advanced stuff. And a good MSc thesis should contain original research (not "independent" - you don't do independent research until after PhD, that's why you have a thesis advisor).Ah yes, I keep forgetting that there is a world of difference between US and UK.In the US, BS is 4 years, and the better students spend the last year or two taking graduate level classes since they placed out of the simpler lower level classes in high school AP.MS is just more classes, and the thesis option essentially is for those who drop out of PhDs and want to use their research.PhD is not time bound, typically lasts 4 or 5 years and the PhD advisors advise - they don't do your work for you.Right, but calling PhD work "independent" is ridiculous.I would say this depends quite a bit on the culture of the institution, the research group, and the supervisor in question (my experience is from the UK, I'm guessing US is the same). Yes, some people I saw basically did what they were told for 3.5 years. Others were left to fend for themselves rather more, both in choosing the direction of their research and in how they went about it. I know a couple of people whose supervisors were definitely more of a hinderance than a help.The degree of 'hand holding' seemed to be correlated with subject, with many of those in 'softer' sciences like chemistry and biology being more like research assistants ('lab rats') than independent researchers. At the other extreme, the people studying humanities were basically expected to do their own thing from the word go - many were slightly bewlidered by the normal level of supervision involved in a science PhD.