Hi I am thinking of embarking on a part time PhD in statistics (non finance related topic) soon and am expecting to finish at age 32. The question is whether I would be considered too old to break into the quant field at 32 with just a PhD and no commercial experience in finance ? I cant really afford to do a PhD full time due to financial commitments , so I feel this is the best option for me . Any thoughts on experiences doing a part time PhD as well as breaking into the quant field in your early 30s are much appreciated.RegardsStats Guy

Hi Stats Guy!What is your current job?And what subject did u study for your Bachelors?

I am currently working as a senior statistician in a totally different sector (Market Research). I studied mathematics and statistics at undergraduate level, got a 1st class honours degree, and then went on to do a masters in statistics and finished that with a distinction. I also have a masters degree in IT. I know I can probably do a PhD in quant finance, but I think having a PhD in statistics would provide me with more opportunities later if I am not successful in securing a quant position. There is no guarantee that I am going to be a quant job even if my PhD was in quant finance, besides what else can you do with a PhD in quant finance if you don’t become a quant? At least with a statistics PhD you can go into medicine, finance, marketing, IT etc,,, as statistics is widely applied in almost any area of science. My question is whether having a PhD at 32 could be a bit too old to get my break as a junior quant? I am 26 now. Stats Guy

Personally I don't think your age is an issue because most junior quants are 26 after they complete thier PhD's. Although you would be 32, you're still bringing in bags of experience into the industry and that definitely counts for a lot.I dont think you should pursue a PhD in Quant Finance simply because if you cant get a job as a Quant then you are left with no other options. At least with a PhD in Statistics you can pursue other industries if all else fails.If you are really concerned about your age when you graduate, why dont you do the PhD full time??You say that you got a first class, I am sure you could easily obtain funding if you choose the right school.

Well this is an interesting point you raise fais20. I am currently on a 30k salary and assume that goes up with the rate of inflation over the next 6 years, with a similar assumption for a full time PhD studentship. Now: Usually you get your tuition fees paid as well as get a maintenance of around 13k tax free each year for three years . so that’s 13*3=39k over the 3 years (including tuition fees) Now with a part-time PhD, the tuition fee is usually around 1.5k per year in London, and you have to be registered for a minimum of 5 years , with the 6th year for write-up where no tuition fees are paid. So the total cost of the tuition part is around 1.5k*5=9k over 5 years . My net salary is around 20k, and assuming that a full time PhD gets a job at the same salary as me when I am three years into my PhD, so we have (20-1.5)*3-1.5k*2=52.5k. So over 5 years, I would be 52.5k-39k=13.5k better off by doing my PhD part time . The only flaw in this is if someone who done a full time PhD gets a job immediately after their PhD at a salary over 35k or more. Also, I could be a statistics manager in the next 3 years with a salary of around 45k, so I am sure not many full time PhDs would start on that rate, unless they were lucky enough to get a quant job. So all things considered I am better off doing it part time , even though I shall be around 32 by the time I finish the PhD as opposed to 29 full time , but more broke and no guarantee of a quant job at the end. In the long run a good statistician gets paid a similar wage to an average level quant (around 60-70K). And you don’t have to work 12-14 hrs days. So either way I am happy, and most of all I am doing a PhD for myself and not to get a job at the end of it as I already have a relatively good job. Stats Guy

StatsGuy, I think that you have it all figured out. You could probably take some elective QuanFinance courses in your Stats PhD and you will have some of the skills already covered. Remeber that some years ago, Quant positions were filled by Physics PhDs. If you have good C++ skills once you are done, you should be fine. Why are you worried, like you said, if you don't get a quant job, you will have other options.My question would be if you want to work for someone who is not hiring you because your are 32 and not 26? better said, would you hired someone because of what he can bring or because of his age? Would you hired yourself at age 32 with the knowledge that you will have? If you would do it, why wouldn't you be able to find someone who thinks like you?I am sure you will be ok. The one who has to worry about is me. I am the crazy one. I am 34, with 8 years of Marketing and Business Development experience, leading a team of 3 great junior guys in europ, with only a BSc in Mechanical Engineering, making US$130K a year and will be leaving my business development career to pursue a MSc in FinMath.. wish me luck,, you are on the safe side.cheers,

good luck for your MSc babluaye!statsguy, for what it's worth, here is my 0.01:my vision of life is a bit diferent than yours. I think that you look just a bit too much to the money.Of course its important, but its not all!! I do not believe that there is a single quant with a PhD on physics, that went on to make his/her PhD with economical reasons in mind!In fact, and at least in my case, it was exactly the other way arround. At the time I started my PhD, I had freinds going to consultancy companies and making lots of money at the age of 22. I could have done the same, but I figured that I would have more fun doing a PhD in Physics - and that turned out to be true!Alex

Exactly, I am 100% with Alex on this. You should embark in a PhD only if you are doing it Because you want to. A PhD takes some time and will not be fun at all if you are not enjoying what you are doing.Look at Babaluaye, he is making decent money, but he is turning towards finance, not mainly because of the money I believe, but because he is getting fascinated by the discipline

Statsguy, why do you want to be a quant? If it's only for the money then that's problematic. Whatever the field, whether it be in quantitative studies or medicine or law or architecture or being a concert violinist, one of the key points is passion.In my view you have to really enjoy this stuff to the point of where you are willing to bore others because you just can't stop talking about it. Whether it's the violin or being a surgeon or being a great ballet dancer (would that be a ballerino?) people are going to flock to you and throw money at you if they know you love what you are doing, a real nut for it.If you just want to do something for a reasonable amount of money, try law school. Starting salary after 3 years of college is 100K at most firms and partner in five years pulls in 300,000 extra on top of that. There's a horrific shortage of lawyers with quantitative skills (for valuing licenses, designing pension plans, etc.).For me the litmus test would be: Do you love the markets? I know I do. Do you like seeing if you can outsmart the conventional wisdom? If so, do it. If not, follow your passion whatever it may be, within reason.Hope this helps. When I was your age I was unsure what to do, so I decided to just put together a few credentials to "hedge" my bets. Then I figured I would figure it all out later.So I got a Series 7 and then I went to law school and passed the Bar.Now I finally figured out what I want to do.What I want to do is sip mojitos overlooking the Caribbean at sunset with a cool wind blowing in my hair and the city below. matthew