Apologies, I guess thats one way of getting senior statues quicker..QuoteOriginally posted by: Anthis I ve seen theses that just contain a few simple regressions...I dont necessarily see why complexity of analysis should be important?Hubble produced a pretty simple piece of research, which involved a very simple regression based on data that he may/or may not have manipulated.Regardless it was a very important piece of work.Both complexity and statistical significance are overrated virtues in research. What is important is significance.....

QuoteOriginally posted by: playerIts only a short mater of time before post doc are what is required rather than PhD's....Indeed by 2010 you may well be seeing an increasing number of applications with min post docs.....Of course this is dependent on demand and supply conditionsDo you think there is a strong relationship between how much $ you earn and how much educaton you have? are people with post-doctor generllly richer than with master in math finance? are they more socialable than master in math finance?

QuoteOriginally posted by: JQuoteOriginally posted by: playerIts only a short mater of time before post doc are what is required rather than PhD's....Indeed by 2010 you may well be seeing an increasing number of applications with min post docs.....Of course this is dependent on demand and supply conditionsDo you think there is a strong relationship between how much $ you earn and how much educaton you have? are people with post-doctor generllly richer than with master in math finance? are they more socialable than master in math finance?Yes and no. For a quant job, a Phd definitely makes more than a Master. However, traders make the most money and most of them only have bachelor's degree.

Why not? By self-training. In energydude's words again, "going through the whole process of thinking up my own problems from scratch".Two graduate students under same superviser, same length of study, same courses, but why one can produce results on his/her own while the other cannot? Because the former is curious, motivated, independent, and confident, while the latter would rather wait till next Monday for a hint from the superviser. Experience or exposure play virtually no role in one's maturity.Maturity is not the number of white hairs on one's head. Years of exposure may teach one how, for example, the Libor Market Model works. Maturity is the level of understanding why, not how. Why does one need to know the model after all? Is it just because other peers do?

Ouyang, to many questions of yours, I could give a resounding "yes" answer. I would love to learn from the people who see the wood, not the people who see the trees. That is my definition of maturity, regardless of how they acquired it. Training, experience, whatever, you name it.Regarding the MSc guy, he's curious and motivated (enough to learn finance by himself), that's why all of us gave him the best mark. You're mistaken: I never tie a PhD with maturity! On your side, you've been picking a grain of sand in people's words by interpreting them litterally. I suggest it's more constructive that you comment on my example of two graduate students. Both have same experience and exposure, why one is more mature than the other? Please don't drag this thread too far, away from its intitial question: "Why only PhDs?" Other than that, I will opt to give up the topics.

Alright. So we are back to where we were.If I ever allowed my bosses to dismiss my models as gabbage, that would be already immature enough of me. They would say that if years working along with them, I kept making false statements, using incorrect data, producing unreliable results, etc. I must have had guts to sell them a ground-breaking work. Otherwise, if I have gained their trust and confidence over the years, for anything small or big, I expect them to pause for a moment: "Hey, it's worth listening to this thoughtful person". That establishes the level of maturity.Back to the initital thread, I doubt if anyone in this thread or myself ever claimed PhD to be superior to an MSc. Some might have misused the words that you criticized, but all understand the content.

When you publish papers and give talks on the same, people are always telling you that your work is garbage. And these are way smarter people with huge reputations.In the last conf I went to, a nobel laureate announced in the first five minutes of my talk that he didn't believe any of it! Soon there was a group of profs sitting with him agreeing with him whole-heartedly. I had to deal with that as a rookie in front of 100 people with somebody like that on the attack...heh...if anyone expects I would quail in front of traders, they have another think coming

I am reminded as I read this thread about the debate about the tendency of investment banks to typically recruit only from Ivy league schools. The typical justification for this behavior is that it increases the probability of filling the role (I believe someone else has made the same point on this thread before). As a non-Ivy leaguer who still managed make it to Wall Street, I certainly appreciate someone's willingness to 'think out of the box'. However, as I have culled through stacks of resumes in filling openings (quant and otherwise) over the last 10 years, I must admit that it is so much easier to filter based on some of these criteria (unfair as it might seem to the talented needle in the haystack) without too much of a loss if candidate quality. A slightly different perspective from the focus on whether or not a PhD makes you smarter! --From someone who has (or maybe does not have??) a PhD......