QuoteOriginally posted by: CrazyClimberQuoteOriginally posted by: CrashedMintWell, no not really of course. There are probably even lots of examples where some 40 year old guy decided to do something brand new and succeeded, but whenever I read posts of guys in their late 30s finishing their degrees I can't stop but feel really sad. I might be because I moonlighted at a place once and a lot of the lab assistants there were between 35 and 40 and "about to defend soon". They seemed so sad, it's hard to put it in words.Oh, come on, this is a bit harsh. If they are 35 to 40 and never finish it would be sad, but if they actually finish, then it can't be that sad. Compare to an auto mechanic or other laborer that hits 40 and has aching joints and a bad back. There are much worse situations to be in than getting a PhD at 40. It may be more sad to think about the people that wanted to get a PhD in their 30's but never went for it and now regret it.Most people going for a PhD don't do it for the money, they do it because they like studying the subject. If that's viewed as a shortcoming, then so be it. But I'll determine my sadness on a case by case basis.One of my cousin sisters got her Phd at 55. No real reason to get it. She just loved the subject and followed her passion. I would probably do the same if I have the luxury of retiring even at 60. Seems like a heck of good way to stay motivated in old age.

QuoteOriginally posted by: capafan2QuoteOriginally posted by: CrazyClimberQuoteOriginally posted by: CrashedMintWell, no not really of course. There are probably even lots of examples where some 40 year old guy decided to do something brand new and succeeded, but whenever I read posts of guys in their late 30s finishing their degrees I can't stop but feel really sad. I might be because I moonlighted at a place once and a lot of the lab assistants there were between 35 and 40 and "about to defend soon". They seemed so sad, it's hard to put it in words.Oh, come on, this is a bit harsh. If they are 35 to 40 and never finish it would be sad, but if they actually finish, then it can't be that sad. Compare to an auto mechanic or other laborer that hits 40 and has aching joints and a bad back. There are much worse situations to be in than getting a PhD at 40. It may be more sad to think about the people that wanted to get a PhD in their 30's but never went for it and now regret it.Most people going for a PhD don't do it for the money, they do it because they like studying the subject. If that's viewed as a shortcoming, then so be it. But I'll determine my sadness on a case by case basis.One of my cousin sisters got her Phd at 55. No real reason to get it. She just loved the subject and followed her passion. I would probably do the same if I have the luxury of retiring even at 60. Seems like a heck of good way to stay motivated in old age.maybe you can do this in literature or stuff like that...in maths, at 60, you are done.

QuoteOriginally posted by: capafan2QuoteOriginally posted by: CrazyClimberQuoteOriginally posted by: CrashedMintWell, no not really of course. There are probably even lots of examples where some 40 year old guy decided to do something brand new and succeeded, but whenever I read posts of guys in their late 30s finishing their degrees I can't stop but feel really sad. I might be because I moonlighted at a place once and a lot of the lab assistants there were between 35 and 40 and "about to defend soon". They seemed so sad, it's hard to put it in words.Oh, come on, this is a bit harsh. If they are 35 to 40 and never finish it would be sad, but if they actually finish, then it can't be that sad. Compare to an auto mechanic or other laborer that hits 40 and has aching joints and a bad back. There are much worse situations to be in than getting a PhD at 40. It may be more sad to think about the people that wanted to get a PhD in their 30's but never went for it and now regret it.Most people going for a PhD don't do it for the money, they do it because they like studying the subject. If that's viewed as a shortcoming, then so be it. But I'll determine my sadness on a case by case basis.One of my cousin sisters got her Phd at 55. No real reason to get it. She just loved the subject and followed her passion. I would probably do the same if I have the luxury of retiring even at 60. Seems like a heck of good way to stay motivated in old age.guys, I'm fine with having an unpopular opinion, but this time i am actually misunderstood:If some guy decided to get a Phd and succeeds at 55, that's pretty cool. Same with 100 years old stock trader. Pretty awesome. Then that guy who decided after 4 years of work experience that he should go back to university and get a Phd with 36. I'm happy for him. If you decide to be a scientist and stay in university forever: Cool! Follow your dream.But if you are simply lazy and never ever held a real job, and with 35 you are still not defending even though you don't do anything other than studying that you are a lazy bum and deserve to be ridiculed. And you will never ever ever get a quant job. Headhunters will laugh at you. Banks will laugh at you. Maybe some PC guys here will cheer but industry people will sneer and that's about it.Sometimes I am lazy as shit but I'm not stupid and I got a PhD before 30 from a top school in a quantitative subject. Sure, I got some scholarships but I held other jobs to keep the lights on while doing it. Its absolutely doable. You can easily work 12 or so hours per day and still have free time and social life. If you come it at like 10, then do some browsing then check your mail, then go for lunch break, then check youtube, then open latex and then leave by 3 you are probably not exactly the type of person who should work in finance anyways.

Quoteguys, I'm fine with having an unpopular opinion, but this time i am actually misunderstood:I did'nt misunderstand you. In fact I liked you your usage of the "very old 36 year olds". I felt it was funny and captured the essence of how 36 year old entries are viewed in finance. I went in as a experienced hire and saw that first hand. I just lost track how how the thread evolved and thought everyone was giving examples of really really old dudes and dudettes who achieved unusual success and felt like chipping in an example from my own family.I did not think you were ageist for one moment. It was just a fun conversation we were having here about let us top each others story with a real world example.

QuoteOriginally posted by: capafan2Quoteguys, I'm fine with having an unpopular opinion, but this time i am actually misunderstood:I did'nt misunderstand you. In fact I liked you your usage of the "very old 36 year olds". I felt it was funny and captured the essence of how 36 year old entries are viewed in finance. I went in as a experienced hire and saw that first hand. I just lost track how how the thread evolved and thought everyone was giving examples of really really old dudes and dudettes who achieved unusual success and felt like chipping in an example from my own family.I did not think you were ageist for one moment. It was just a fun conversation we were having here about let us top each others story with a real world example.

How many people here are actually quants, or do quant jobs even exist anymore? Most talk on here seems to lean more toward pure programming.

Because most of any quant job is pure programming.

What I mean is, compare what is discussed in most of the articles on the front page of the site to what is discussed in most of these threads. There seems to be little overlap.

QuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaBecause most of any quant job is pure programming.so why do you need a phd in maths?

Quotein maths, at 60, you are done.Make that 24.

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuotein maths, at 60, you are done.Make that 24.maybe more... i would say 40 (fields medal age limit)

QuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaBecause most of any quant job is pure programming.There are still some old chap like Peter Carr or Bruno Dupire who still do pure math (and not only programming) but this is a very exception. The Derman era is dead...

QuoteOriginally posted by: frenchXQuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaBecause most of any quant job is pure programming.There are still some old chap like Peter Carr or Bruno Dupire who still do pure math (and not only programming) but this is a very exception. The Derman era is dead... brigo and mercurio as well.but actually someone to invent and develop the models is needed. and that one needs to be a mathematician, otherwise they could just employ lots of engineers and programmers...

As with any field, you need many more people implementing theories than doing research.The large volumes of quants required was for programming/implementing new payoffs etc ( in existing pricing library).its not to say that people aren't encouraged to do their own research/ give presentations etc, but as catastropha says the majority of quant work is programming.you then have headquants presenting their research (derman, piterbarg, balland etc, and that hasn't really changed)- which may or may not ever be implemented within the bank.the reality is that there are just not that many new models required.gianluca19: they don't need Phds in maths- just smart people. Put it another way - they don't care whether your phd is in algebraic topology or stochastics. Its just a filter to get smart people with minimum effort- ie without interviewing 1000 people.

QuoteOriginally posted by: spv205As with any field, you need many more people implementing theories than doing research.The large volumes of quants required was for programming/implementing new payoffs etc ( in existing pricing library).its not to say that people aren't encouraged to do their own research/ give presentations etc, but as catastropha says the majority of quant work is programming.you then have headquants presenting their research (derman, piterbarg, balland etc, and that hasn't really changed)- which may or may not ever be implemented within the bank.the reality is that there are just not that many new models required.gianluca19: they don't need Phds in maths- just smart people. Put it another way - they don't care whether your phd is in algebraic topology or stochastics. Its just a filter to get smart people with minimum effort- ie without interviewing 1000 people.what i don't get is why they need smart people to do a programming job...probably because they need to understand what they are implementing then...