From what I keep reading through the posts, everyone seems to have varying opinions on what are the best places to go (both as undergrad and postgrad). But what would you say were the best places to have on your CV in terms of wanting to become a quant ?

Postgrad depends - But the following Unis are TOP - Cambridge / Oxford / Imperial / LSE / Warwick / York / Nottingham / Bristol

QuoteOriginally posted by: dberg314From what I keep reading through the posts, everyone seems to have varying opinions on what are the best places to go (both as undergrad and postgrad). But what would you say were the best places to have on your CV in terms of wanting to become a quant ?Oxford.I suppose Cambridge is OK too.After that, it all gets a bit murky.

Oxford?? Not for maths or quant finance.Cambridge/Imperial/Warwick would be my top three for undergrad or MSc.

I'd add UCL, University of London. Very good for Maths undergrad/MSc Maths.

UCL, Cambridge, Warwick and Imperial and I guess Oxford. Having gone to three of these uni's UCL and Cambridge definitely rock

paul was at oxford and leftthough methinks he rather not admit it

QuoteOriginally posted by: GMOxford?? Not for maths or quant finance.Cambridge/Imperial/Warwick would be my top three for undergrad or MSc.After Oxford, I attended Imperial, and had the misfortune to teach a bit there. I found academic ability of the students there to be far below that of those I knew at Oxford.At risk of opening myself up to all sorts of criticism, I interview anyone from Oxbridge whose CV I get. If they are not Oxbridge, then it is harder to decide who to invite in.I know there are a few other good institutions out there, but, to be blunt, I have never met an alumnus of Thames Valley who has shone. Not to say they are not out there, just I haven't seen them yet.

QuoteOriginally posted by: unkpathWell that is a bit extreme, may I recommend you reconsider your interviewing criterial somewhat. It must depend on what you interview them on. I don't know about Oxford, but the Cambridge maths tripos allow for sufficient latitude, that students can get away with not as much maths as one might expect they should do. I am not advocating the French or Soviet system either, where you either walk in line or get the parts of you that stick out chopped off. There s got to be something in between! Also do not forget that people are not married with their university education, but evolve well beyond that time.Well, I'd accept that there was something wrong if I were rejecting people based on non-attendance, but I don't do that. Rather, I do the converse. I am willing to make extra time for anyone from my old university (and the other one, out on the fens), even if at first glance, their CV does not look much above the norm.I think that living in a college environment, where you are cheek to jowl with people of so many backgrounds, and where you can't help but gain from the environment, definitely turns out the sort of people I want. You seem to get much more rounded people from the collegiate systems than from others.One reason I am not too uncomfortable with placing a decent amount of weight behind which university somepone went to is that Oxbridge has good selectrion criteria at age 18. My class had an average of above AAAB at A-level back in the 80's, when that was quite an uncommon set of results, The students were then schooled one to one, and had to compete with other similarly bright people to stay ahead. They had also to get over suddenly not being the brightest person they knew any more.The whole experience seems to leave a pretty definite mark on people. I am sure that other places do the same, though.I'll still employ whoever I think is the best for a job (and I'm generally talking about graduate jobs), but I do try and be efficient with my time. I have found that inviting in everyone from Oxbridge, and then others who look interesting, is the best way to get a good selection of talent from which to pick. I'd urge anyone who has the choice to think long and hard about picking a "good" course at a middling institution. People like me who do the interviewing know we'll miss an odd pearl by being picky with who comes in, but prefer that to spending days trawling through unsuitable candidates. As I've said before, harsh as it may sound, I probably make offers to around 50% of the people I see from Oxbridge. 10% of those from Imperial, Durham, or St Andrews, and I have never passed someone from Trent Poly for as much as a second round. Even if I had started with a total lack of preconceptions, I think I'd be leaning to wards my current views by now.

great - John.... my CV is in the post!

how is edinburgh Msc finance and investment? havnt heard much about it, but just got in. Wondering how it ranks with rotterdam b-sch, imperial and city... how would you rank these. I want go into equities eventually.

I accept NJ's argument, I'd do the same.The only problem is that in my view at Oxbridge a far higher proportion of people are what I deem to be "social inept", consquently if you can get the socially capable Oxbridge guys then do it. Then, as Oxbridge and this criteron is a finite resource you go through the others.

Most people I've met from Oxbridge have been guffawing idiots who I wouldn't allow out unless escorted by at least two adults - the kind of people who piss off counterparties just by breathing - LSE guys, LSE - no maths but if you want people who want to make money for themselves and for you that is the place to look - some 60% are from overseas and the place is little run down warren - that's cheek-by-jowl, not lording it up in some college surrounded by fools.