[RocknRap]

(Original post by i_hate_teeth)
I know chicks @ Oxford that were privately educated at top London schools that would back up what that guy said, but to be honest that's neither here nor there. I love stuck up/posh girls especially the ones that are into ballet/gymnastics.

That's because you're a beta white-knight phaggot who'll take abuse from any girl just to get inside her undies.

real talk.

[a.partridge]

(Original post by non)
What...? You have to have 3 a levels out of fm, Maths, physics and chemistry. Wow and they are recruiting for a person with a phd in Maths or physics. What's wrong with a phd in engineering, finance, financial engineering or computer science? Why only Maths and physics?

generally these quantitative analyst roles take most of their people from maths and physics. mainly because physicists of the right kind of phd (some kind of quantum mechanics/other statistical focus) have huge amounts of maths (more than the other things you listed) and are very used to applying it to new problems.

maths people might be less used to applying it to new problems but have the force of knowing more maths and focusing more on it.

[meow444]

(Original post by SHELDON123)
No, I'm not saying that David Cameron isn't a "posh snob". In fact, I agree with you on that one. However, he (and the other politicians I believe you are talking about) was notoriously a part of the Bullingdon club, a very small group of people in Oxford that certainly are posh snobs. However, they are an incredibly small minority at Oxford and I firmly believe they are very very different to your average Oxford graduate. As I've said before, I believe you already perceive all Oxford graduates as posh snobs before you meet them and so don't give them a chance. The vast vast majority of Oxford graduates that I know are not like this at all. In my opinion, it is a bull**** stereotype that simply isn't true and it harms the image of the university.

When I talk about the people running our country, I don't just mean politicians. There are people in other powerful positions who have a massive influence over our lives and effectively run the country. A lot of those people attended an Oxbridge institution, and a lot of them are posh snobs in my opinion. They have no interest in the welfare of the general population. Most of them only really care about themselves, and see themselves as better than other people for some reason. They have enough money and influence to really help people, but instead they make selfish decisions.

You can be idealistic and naive and believe that there is no longer a class system in place which dictates who gets a decent education, who gets certain jobs and who gets the positions of power and the wealth in society, or you can open your eyes and realise that the world is not a place of equality and justice.

When I meet someone I fully base my opinion of them on their actions and what they tell me about themselves, not on ill-informed stereotypes. If I met an Oxbridge graduate I would not assume they are a posh snob for a moment. I would meet them with an open mind and question whether they are different to the other Oxbridge graduates I know. That doesn't mean though that I can't make observations of trends and make generalisations about how the world works. Universities get reputations for a reason. It doesn't just come out of thin air.

[davidcy147]

Sounds like someone at TSR wrote that job advert.

[fail@maths]

It's a specialist Quant role. Most roles of this nature at any Financial Institution will ask for similar calibre academic requirements.

Hell even average Op/credit/market risk ask for BSc, MSc (Econs/Maths/Finance) and or CFA these days as a minimum!

[Zalachenko]

(Original post by hassi94)
That's rubbish I'm pretty certain. Salary for a Junior Quant (no experience) is usually around £50k before bonuses. I think the websites you're listing quite extensively stretch the meaning of 'Quanitative Analyst'.


Some examples:

1: Junior Quant - £40-60k + Bonus + benefits
2: Junior Quant - £50-200k+ depending on experience (none required, however)

So this one requiring at least 1 year of research and 3 years of experience in the industry must pay a fair bit more.

Kid, finish high school, get your degree, an MSc and then a PhD.

Only then can you discuss quant compensation.

[Gridiron-Gangster]

They listed the RG univerrsities but forgot to include Exeter and Queen Mary and Queen's Belfast although not sure whhen the ad was made.

As for offensiveness meh...it's their firm, their job advert they can stipulate whatever they want.

[sexbo]

Someone please give me a convincing argument why a 2:1 from Oxbridge > 1st from Imperial/UCL/LSE?

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by sexbo)
Someone please give me a convincing argument why a 2:1 from Oxbridge > 1st from Imperial/UCL/LSE?

Oxbridge degree are generally considered to be more difficult than the degrees at the chasing pack. I would probably say that Imperial comes pretty close in terms of physical workload/content. However, I doubt LSE and UCL degrees are harder or more rigorous than degree from Warwick, Durham, St Andrews, Bristol,etc hence why they are in the same grouping.

[sexbo]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
Oxbridge degree are generally considered to be more difficult than the degrees at the chasing pack. I would probably say that Imperial comes pretty close in terms of physical workload/content. However, I doubt LSE and UCL degrees are harder or more rigorous than degree from Warwick, Durham, St Andrews, Bristol,etc hence why they are in the same grouping.

C'mon you're not serious. You may have an argument for UCL/LSE vs Warwick/Durham for certain subjects but you simply cannot compare UCL/LSE with the likes of Bristol/St Andrews

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by sexbo)
C'mon you're not serious. You may have an argument for UCL/LSE vs Warwick/Durham for certain subjects but you simply cannot compare UCL/LSE with the likes of Bristol/St Andrews

Not in terms of prestige and international reputation. In terms of academic rigour, and the difficulty of degree, you probably can. The courses at LSE at undergrad in particular aren't really taught that well, but the prestige of the institution suffices. UCL's courses probably won't be any tougher than the equivalant course at Warwick or Durham, but that's just my opinion.

Guess you're not a fan of St Andrews then.

The fact is that St Andrews is formidable and is now turning its attention to its actual main rivals, Oxford and Cambridge.

[bmqib]

(Original post by a.partridge)
generally these quantitative analyst roles take most of their people from maths and physics. mainly because physicists of the right kind of phd (some kind of quantum mechanics/other statistical focus) have huge amounts of maths (more than the other things you listed) and are very used to applying it to new problems.

maths people might be less used to applying it to new problems but have the force of knowing more maths and focusing more on it.

are computer scientists well represented?

[bmqib]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
Not in terms of prestige and international reputation. In terms of academic rigour, and the difficulty of degree, you probably can. The courses at LSE at undergrad in particular aren't really taught that well, but the prestige of the institution suffices. UCL's courses probably won't be any tougher than the equivalant course at Warwick or Durham, but that's just my opinion.

Guess you're not a fan of St Andrews then.

lse teaches economics and fluffy mathematics, how acadmically rigorous could they be if they tried, and imperial workload is just grunt work, oxbridge may technically have a higher workload due to shorter term times but it's more the caliber of the students that make a first from there more valued than elsewhere

[RocknRap]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
Oxbridge degree are generally considered to be more difficult than the degrees at the chasing pack. I would probably say that Imperial comes pretty close in terms of physical workload/content. However, I doubt LSE and UCL degrees are harder or more rigorous than degree from Warwick, Durham, St Andrews, Bristol,etc hence why they are in the same grouping.

I think the workload depends more on the field of study. For science subjects the compulsory workload will be very high at all decent uni's as the faculty will need to ensure students are keeping up with the work throughout the year due to the technicalities of the course and subsequent prerequisite nature of the course. Hence the heavy compulsory workload throughout the year, as well as the many contact hours.

For an arts subject like history on the other hand you get hardly any contact hours (Oxbridge included), and apart from the compulsory essays what you do is entirely your choice.

Wrt to difficulty of a degree, as I've said in a previous post, once you get to a certain level it becomes very hard to differentiate amongst the top. I will however say that on the whole LSE/UCL degrees will be more challenging than Warwick, Bristol etc mainly because professors will expect more of them and will therefore set more challeging work/ a higher workload.

[miml]

In general for maths degrees (which is mainly what we are talking about here)

Cambridge, Oxford, Warwick, Imperial (COWI) are the top 4 institutions academically (not necessarily in that order). Whether employers recognise that or not is a different matter. You are probably better off going to Bath to study maths than say UCL if what you are interested in is maths rather than a career in the City. Fact is that most employers don't recognise (or choose not to) the academic reputation of particular departments in a university, but rather focus on the entire university.

Secondly, a maths degree at any of COWI is equally hard, but in slightly different ways. In the academic world, a 1st from any of these is better than a 2:1 from any other. In the city, as above, things may be different.

[a.partridge]

(Original post by bmqib)
are computer scientists well represented?

I imagine that for the actual quantitative analyzing, the type of maths they do might be a bit different - put since the end product of it is likely a computer program it seems they could be involved.

Though I don't know much about computer phd's as it doesn't seem to be a very common topic, maybe there's some things directly relevant.

also if you are a comp sci (based on your interest) i've seen lots of financial type jobs that require programming and want comp sci people. you wouldn't need to do a phD either

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by Zalachenko)
Kid, finish high school, get your degree, an MSc and then a PhD.

Only then can you discuss quant compensation.

Don't understand your point. Yes some Quant positions require a PhD (especially the ones at Investment Banks), the two I showed there do not (didn't even make reference to PhDs), and so my point was that a Quant position that DID require a PhD would pay more.

And nowadays most people will do a 4 year undergrad then PhD rather than an MSc then PhD.

Seems like your post had no useful input but to be condescending and boost your ego.

[Tokyoround]

This isn't really offensive. They can have any requirements they wish, short of explicit racism/sexism etc. Absolutely ridiculous demands but can't see why it would cause "offence". Would be interesting to find out the employer, they are clearly only after the very best of the best and must be able to offer attractive packages too. I imagine they are quite secretive though.

[Zalachenko]

(Original post by hassi94)
Don't understand your point. Yes some Quant positions require a PhD (especially the ones at Investment Banks), the two I showed there do not (didn't even make reference to PhDs), and so my point was that a Quant position that DID require a PhD would pay more.

And nowadays most people will do a 4 year undergrad then PhD rather than an MSc then PhD.

Seems like your post had no useful input but to be condescending and boost your ego.

Boost my ego? Enlighten me.

Don't generalize. You said junior quants could be around 50k a year yet I've met a few who's salaries were in the six-figures and were not even close to 30 years old.

I've been interning (summers) in the same hedge fund for the last 3 years and haven't come across a single person working in research/programming/trading which does not have a PhD in physics/mathematics/computer science and a broad background in Quant/mathematical Finance (MSc level). So please, stop trolling or even trying to sound informed because you're not.

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by Zalachenko)
Boost my ego? Enlighten me.

Don't generalize. You said junior quants could be around 50k a year yet I've met a few who's salaries were in the six-figures and were not even close to 30 years old.

I've been interning (summers) in the same hedge fund for the last 3 years and haven't come across a single person working in research/programming/trading which does not have a PhD in physics/mathematics/computer science and a broad background in Quant/mathematical Finance (MSc level). So please, stop trolling or even trying to sound informed because you're not.

Well you think you can act superior because you're older, tarring everyone with the same brush.

Anyway I think you must've misread my post. Someone said that average quant salary is $70k or something - I was saying it's much higher, especially since (as I gave examples of) you can get into some quant jobs without a PhD whatsoever which pay more than that. So it seems you're agreeing with me on that point.

Well you said yourself you've been interning in the SAME hedge fun for the last 3 years so yeah they probably only hire people with PhDs? Isn't that a fairly logical assumption?

And yes I know most you talk to now will have MScs. I'm saying that people who are at university now study maths/physics are more likely to do an MSci (as they have become pretty standard in these subject over the past 4-5 years).