I'm coming to the point of selecting a PhD (in the UK). I'm interested in hearing how people made their choice of supervisor and institution and also people's conceptions of particular departments and institutions. Not being too specific, I'm looking at a PhD Mathematics, covering Partial differential equations, Numerical and Analytical methods. I have vested interests in complex and fourier analysis, and I hold a Masters in Mathematics and an MFE already from decent institutions. I particularly enjoyed a course in pricing during my MFE and would like to relate some of my PhD to this work. Here is the criteria I have considered for selection:1) Appropriate supervisor to match specific area interest (compatibility, publications)2) Quality of teaching3) Funding of course / Living costs4) Course availability / acceptance rates5) Department reputation / notable faculty / size of dept6) Institution reputation7) Chances of securing 'best' quant related job possible after study (if applicable)Should I be considering anything else? what should be my top priority?I have shortlisted some specific institutions for certain reasons (financial, academic, location etc). Please could someone give me some feedback on how these departments are rated and perceived in general?Also, are some more difficult to gain admission to than others? And does anyone know if full funding + maintenance is easy to obtain (maybe from personal experience?). Your help much appreciated!Please give me some insight into the Maths departments of these institutions and also relation of these to financial courses - e.g. i know king's have a financial mathematics course and faculty etc):1) Durham2) York3) Bristol4) UCL5) Bath6) King's CollegeCheers!

You should go the highest ranked phd program you can get into to. All your other factors are irrelevant.

ok but which is the highest rank? the only indication I have is teaching assessments and brand name. Could u please give me an indication of how you would order the following?1) Durham2) York3) Bristol4) UCL5) Bath6) King's College

QuoteOriginally posted by: quantwannabe5Should I be considering anything else? what should be my top priority?The top priority is to be able to finish the Ph.D. This means that the appropriate supervisor is the most important thing. If you end up with a supervisor or topic you dislike, then the chances of finishing the program go down sharply, and a finished Ph.D. from anywhere trumps an unfinished one. Then comes funding. Once you've covered the issues that could cause you to not finish, then look at institutional reputation and career outcomes.Among the other things on your list. Quality of teaching is more or less irrelevant for Ph.D. work. Notable faculty is a hard one to gauge, because it does really help to interact personally with big names, but its hard to tell how much you really interact with the big names. Admission rates are irrelevant once you get in, but you should probably apply to a variety of schools with different admission rates.Size of department involves personal taste, however, I think bigger is probably better. You are going to be working in small groups anyway, and a bigger department gives you more chances to interact with research that isn't your primary focus.For academic work, department reputation trumps institutional reputation, and reputation of dissertation advisor trumps department reputation. In getting past the first pass in job hunting, institutional reputation trumps department reputation.

Why aren't you looking at Warwick ?

QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCWhy aren't you looking at Warwick ?Too close to Coventry?

QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCWhy aren't you looking at Warwick ?cuz warwick people are doing financial mathematics in business school, and they provide phd in finance instead of phd in mathematics!

QuoteOriginally posted by: tangkeweiQuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCWhy aren't you looking at Warwick ?cuz warwick people are doing financial mathematics in business school, and they provide phd in finance instead of phd in mathematics!And you think that is a good reason?

business school programs are have much more competitive admissions standards than math depts. eg., could be 300 applicants for 1 slot in b school phd programs.

so i didnt put warwick, imperial, oxbridge down coz i heard they were extremely hard to get into and i know there are people with higher grades than me out there. so i'm trying to gauge the competitiveness/standard/advantages/ratings of the afore mentioned institutions and my chances of being accepted. Any help would be much appreciated.

Somewhat different issue but in NYT 3/13/07 there is an article about Terry Tao one of the latest Fields winners. He has a page of [he admits most is just common sense] advise for undergrad/grad students in math.http://terrytao.wordpress.com/

QuoteOriginally posted by: quantwannabe5so i didnt put warwick, imperial, oxbridge down coz i heard they were extremely hard to get into and i know there are people with higher grades than me out there.That shouldn't necessarily stop you from applying. You might get lucky in that you put down that you are extremely interested in studying something that the university just got a grant for studying and which is the favorite topic of the head of the admissions committee. In applying to graduate schools, applicants tend to overestimate the importance of grades and underestimate the importance of the statement of purpose. If you have a experience and interest in a topic which is in the research program of the university and decent grades, that will push your application higher than someone that has better grades but shows little enthusiasm or interest in the university's research program.

twofish,Do you believe that previous statement to be true for top US FE programs also?Example- Undergrad: EE - 3.0 (top 50 public US school) – Signal Processing- Graduate: Applied Math - 4.0 (thesis on numerical analysis/ solving PDEs related to finance) - good school, but not renown for mathematics- 3+ years using C++ to design embedded system for US militaryAs I read through the resume of the current students, it seems that grades, and not interest in quantitative finance, is why they are there. I have shown interest in quantitative finance via my graduate thesis, but my 3.0 will hurt me on admission to a PhD Math or MFE.Obviously finance related work experience helps in the decision processI also read that one of the most important factors the admission committees (FE) look at is if they think they can place you post graduation. It seems that unless your undergraduate GPA was from an Ivy League school and was near perfect, most of the top IB and HF will not even look at you, even if you were able to turn around and do well at grad school, showing interest in QF along the way.Just my perception though.

QuoteOriginally posted by: misiti3780twofish,Do you believe that previous statement to be true for top US FE programs also?I get the sense that it is much less true for masters programs than Ph.D. programs. In the case of masters programs, you are going to get a more or less set curriculum, and you aren't going to work closely with research with faculty members. In the case of Ph.D. programs, the main concern of the admissions committee is that you get through the program and that you can find a faculty member to work with for your dissertation. QuoteI also read that one of the most important factors the admission committees (FE) look at is if they think they can place you post graduation. It seems that unless your undergraduate GPA was from an Ivy League school and was near perfect, most of the top IB and HF will not even look at you, even if you were able to turn around and do well at grad school, showing interest in QF along the way.Masters programs and Ph.D. programs are very different. Finance and physics are also very different. The hiring process for MBA's is completely separate and different from physics and engineering Ph.D.'s. In the case of physics and engineering Ph.D.'s what you did your dissertation on becomes important since the employer is looking for a person with skill X. In the case of MBA's, GPA and school are much more important because there is little else to make a hiring judgment on. Work experience is the only real differentiator, but that correlates highly with the quality of the careers services at the school.Also IB's and HF's have different cultures, and some care more than others about GPA and the school you went to. My general sense is that for quants, DE Shaw and Morgan-Stanley care a lot, but Goldman-Sachs, Citigroup. Bank of America, and JP Morgan don't care that much. Hedge funds are all over the map.

QuoteOriginally posted by: misiti3780As I read through the resume of the current students, it seems that grades, and not interest in quantitative finance, is why they are there. I have shown interest in quantitative finance via my graduate thesis, but my 3.0 will hurt me on admission to a PhD Math or MFE.One other thing is that by itself, GPA tells you very little about the student to Ph.D. admissions committees. Two things that make a difference are:1) what the courses are in. A low but decent GPA on really, really tough courses counts more than a high GPA on easy courses. It sometimes isn't obvious whether the course was tough or not from the transcript, so it make be worth mentioning on the application essay.2) the grading reputation of the school. It's much easier to get an A at Harvard than it is in most public state universities. Admissions committees know this, and take that into account.