QuoteWhat did they tell you?I've talked to two. They told me to do reading, prepare a CV, do mock interviews with other quants, talk to everyone I know in finance, and apply everywhere. One mentioned it's more about connections than what I know. The other mentioned trying a finance program as a possibility. QuoteMy 2.0E-2 cents..I am not a recruiter but I suppose promoting someone with expertise in algebraic topology will be hard if that is the only skill you bring to the table at this juncture. I would personally advise against MSc in CS. They tend to be way too theoretical IMO. Programming you learn on the job (if you are lucky) or by locking yourself up in a room for N months and programming Hull's book in C++. And Paul Wilmott's 3-volume series on Quantitative Finance.At least, this will give you a fighting chance. At the end of the day, it's your decision. ====And in some universities (e.g. Baruch, CMU) you can't get in unless you have done a certified C++ course.Thanks for writing. I've always liked programming, and my main language is C++. Also for the past few years I've been interested in finance and I have done reading on it on and off. But it's true that, all my official credential are in abstract mathematics. I am more of a self-study person rather than a classroom person. So, I look at MS as more of a something I can put on a paper, and possibly get to know people. I am thinking whether it's worth money and effort.

QuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaDoesn't it look bad in general when a person with a PhD in mathematics needs to do another degree to find a job in finance? Not to mention with a PhD in maths one can work in more interesting fields. Oh, the mythical bonuses, I see...I suspect this is more like the way things were when I graduated and when many mathematicians didn't really know what a quant was, hence there weren't as many with MFE or MSc in Fin Math, so it was easier (albeit not easy) to become a quant.Now there's MFE programs everywhere and there are many people on the market that have a PhD + an MFE. And I doubt it is any better than when I started where very few cities had a good supply of quant roles. (somehow I doubt the smug trite I hear from home of "oh, it's different in Dublin" has any merit, considering half the people that barf it out haven't done maths since school - the same trite probably applies to other laughing stock tax havens that think they are a financial 'hub').It's just the reality when every dickhead alive with a maths background wants to become a quant and tries. You've hit on the right reason - the mythical bonuses. A few years ago I was explaining to a friend finishing off her physics PhD why I took voluntary redundancy after my company wanted to fire me for poor performance. She couldn't get it out of her head that I had somehow voluntarily turned down a potential huge bonus. She could use the STL library in C++, understood complex mathematical concepts in algebra, analysis and mechanics, but somehow didn't have the gumption to see the link between performance and bonus - even when I said surely the phrase performance based bonus doesn't mean "100% guaranteed" it wasn't even like the words went in one ear and out another, it was more like the message swerved around her head and missed. Maybe it was the way I said it but a guy that was there that had no finance background got what I was saying instantly. And maybe she is an extreme example (for instance she only applied for one job in her final year and as far as I know is still doing minimum wage jobs since graduating), but this sums up the lack of foresight or common sense seems to have resulted in a crazy situation where certain jobs like quant finance and certain professions are being swamped with applications by graduates with same idea (e.g. in some countries so many people applied to do medicine degrees in the hope of cutting out the annoying job search in the dark that happens with other degrees, that there is now an oversupply of qualified people in the area).To the OP, I'd also look at other areas where there is demand in data analysis/machine learning. The commentary from your quant friends doesn't fill me with confidence - when people go on about connections it just says "oversupply of MFEs and PhDs" to me. This isn't like working in media relations where connections might traditionally have been more useful. Ok, the technical help such as pointing you towards Hull etc is helpful and maybe I'm wrong and will get flamed on this, but I never heard anything about connections when I was on the market.Most importantly, you will need to work on where your PhD is useful and do a bit better than saying "algebraic topology, representation theory etc" as I can see you've done something where the maths is fancy, but don't see where it is useful in industry. And what I mean by that, is that I don't see the usefulness because of how you describe it. Long gone are the days when you could just say "surely you can use someone with that strong an education in industry" - you will need to prove you can come in and get to work on something useful within days and understand what role (if any) things like regulation will have on your role (e.g. in biostats it means you won't have freedom to play around with models and you need to be prepared for that), otherwise you are going nowhere.The impression I get from programmers that have done CS is that it isn't like quant finance where I, for instance, couldn't possibly have done my first role without the masters I did in financial maths. Or to put it another way it is a field where practitioners do say to me "MSc/PhD means nothing", unlike in quant finance. This is based on a small sample size of programmers, but some of that sentiment appears to be reflected in what Cuchulainn says. For programming roles, I'd be inclined to build a side project in programming and/or build a portfolio in CS projects then get a job using that, rather than wasting time in an MSc. And try think of where your PhD is useful so you can leverage it. As Cuchulainn implies getting good programming is 'training with Nelly' AKA 'on the job', and just one of these things where you hope to get the right exposure in a job and not get caught out at some point by working for the wrong firm and/or in too tough and too fast paced a role. Sorry if this all sounds a bit full on and mad, but while a PhD gets you into interesting areas, it's not that straightforward these days.

I agree. A reality check - given the current economic climate - is probably needed. There is no a-priori reason why a degree in anything is a guarantee for a job these days. All these trends are well-known but candidates seem to be oblivious to them for some reason. As Liam says, they are not listening. edit: typo

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnI agree. A reality check - given the current economic climate - is probably needed. There is no a-priori reason why a degree in anything is a guarantee for a job these days. All these trends are well-known but candidates seem to be oblivious to them for some reason. As Liam says, they are not listening. edit: typoI think the problem is that these trends are well known amongst quants and anyone intimately familiar with finance and maths careers, but not outside of this. And outside represents 99% of people and includes some world class wallies. Most students will be influenced by those 99% and easily dissuaded from reality. Describe what I described and parents will come out with some forcefully dismissive crap and find some spurious article that doesn't contradict what I say but appears to (e.g. top jobs of 2015 articles which remove figures on unemployed people or people in the wrong job).I snapped out of this BS thinking after graduating because one of the recruiters I used was an ex trader and he saw I was being led down the whole "find a job and work your way up" nonsense route by other HHs, so he gave me a run down on how the business worked, and some classmates of mine escaped it because PhD supervisors were market aware and got onto them. Doesn't happen to all sadly. I think we have to remember how bad we were at thinking when we were graduates (or maybe earlier) to understand why graduates would fall into this trap. Also I have noticed that many people that go on about maths degrees being meal tickets haven't done the degree or are maths graduates that have never experienced being veered into a non-mathematical career when markets are tough or that have never gone through the level of prep quants go through. One former friend in particular would rather vocally tell me that she would have done way better with such a degree than I did and "besides I could become an accountant with that kind of degree" if all else failed - don't get me started, she's a former friend for various reasons.Generally I would say while the OP isn't guaranteed anything by a degree, a MOOC in machine learning and generally tarting up his CV by doing work with machine learning projects could be enough to get a job in that field as there is demand.

Berkeley/Princeton/MIT MFE may be the way to go. However getting admitted is hard and its a costly investment and if you are NOT 100% into Finance it may prove to be wrong decision.

Thank you liam. Your answer is very useful.So, in the end I (almost) decided to enroll in a data science Masters. It has an interesting program including topics in statistics, big data and machine learning. People seemed cool and they were actually happy that I went to them. If I decide to go to finance, I guess data science will be of some relevance too, and I will learn the finance stuff by myself. Well, that is the rough plan. I may write here what comes out later