Awful A levels but Excellent degree('s). (Quant Analysis)

I'm pretty much in the same boat. Got pretty bad IB grades (31 points overall with 5 in HL Physics, 4 HL Maths and 4 HL English), but went on to get a 1st in Theoretical Physics at QMUL and a Distinction for my MSc in Physics from Imperial. Currently applying for roles as an actuary, and got 2 rejections before any interviews from Catlin and PwC.

That's a really strong background I think actuary might not be the best option though? As far as I understand it Physics grads are most suited to investment bank type roles or even insurance. Risk analysis seems to be the biggie, in your current situation now that you have your Msc are you completely unemployed and looking or do you have some menial job to fill the void for the mean time?

Why would someone doing a degree in Physics have some natural advantage when it comes to Investment Banking or Insurance type roles? The maths involved in these roles will be limited to GCSE or at very best A-level.

Yeah, specifically he is referring to quantitative analyst type investment bank roles, I suggest you read about this before assuming someone with an A level Maths is capable.

Even then, the maths you learn on a physics course isn't geared towards you then moving into a quant role. The points I'm making are that:

a.) Just because you've got a degree in a numerate subject does not make you a genius or make you qualified for any job which in some way involves numbers.
b.) I doubt even Quant Roles in a bank rely that heavily on "advanced maths". I will look into this in more detail tonight.

Ok so i'm hoping to go into quantitative analysis, my A levels were Physics, Maths, Biology, BBC respectively, I was a naive idiot who put very little effort in and have since changed my attitude. I'm currently on my 3rd year in Theoretical Physics with a 1st year grade average of 80% and 2nd year grade average of 82%, on target to finish my degree with a strong First Class Honours also undertaking a 3rd year project with a strong emphasis in programming. I'm waiting to hear back from UCL, Cambridge and Imperial for Msc courses in Theoretical Physics. Under the assumption that I get accepted and maintain a First Class Msc from one of said Universities what are the chances my crappy A-levels will be used against me?

Everywhere I look an excellent set of A levels are required along with an undergraduate degree from a top tier university, whats the reality of my situation?

I work in the back (middle if you're generous!) office of a multinational bank so what I will say is more from observation than direct experience. However, it would appear to me that a degree in Physics is at least equal to if not greater than a degree in Mathematics to work in quantitative analysis and people with these degrees are considered the best candidates for the role. Graduates with good degrees in Economics also tend to do okay, especially if they had the aptitude for Physics but chose their degree because it held greater personal interest. Graduates of Economics, Mathematics and Physics could stand around arguing about which degree is best but in all honesty they'll all get you an interview somewhere in your chosen field if they have an upper second class honours degree. There is also a theory that you have to go to a 'good' university too; I think this really depends on the hiring manager you're applying to; those with a foreign background are especially unlikely to care.

Unsuitable degrees for quantitative analysis will include Humanities and most other Social Science subjects (although solid academic degrees from these branches like History, Psychology and Politics will still leave the doors to the world of finance open, aside from the deeply mathematical roles) and might include Accountancy (a largely 'back office' skill to have). A grey area is law; I find people with law degrees more often in the back office but there is a need for compliance personnel focusing on the work of the front office as well (this is also my area of work, although I focus on regulatory change from the front to back office and I'm definitely a poet, not a quant)!

No one will care about A-levels if you have a degree, provided they're not so low that they don't meet the entry requirements for professional qualifications. A-level fetishism tends to be an issue for lawyers more than anyone else, because they tend to have the laziest recruiters of all.

I would only see you having a problem if you went straight to the big banks as they are often known to recruit from specific institutions and results groups.

What uni are you currently at?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Well currently my University is only ranked top 30 but that is because of my poor A level results, I currently hold an offer from Imperial College, so I will be studying for my masters degree over there from October 2014. I know IB's recruit heavily from Imperial right, so I might be able to get my foot in there without having to go through the rigorous application process that may filter my A levels?

I can't state categorically whether a PhD will be useful although my hunch is that unless what you do is 100% relevant to quantitative finance it probably won't be very helpful. Generally speaking, a PhD tends to be seen as the professional qualification of career academics; I say generally because if you spend two or three years building the most efficient, reliable, quantitative analysis tool the world has ever seen to get your PhD, understandably you might have been thinking of a career in the field as your end goal!

Or, take another perspective. You want to work in quantitative analysis. Does your future employer want you to:

A) Get two-three years work experience as a quantitative analyst;

B) Get a degree relevant to QA (e.g. PhD or another Masters);

C) Get a Theoretical Physics PhD with no practical application to your future career.

I would say definitely A, possibly B and probably not C (although they probably won't discriminate against you for it either).

A third perspective now. Physics undergraduates with high marks are highly sought after because they hold one of the hardest undergraduate degrees there is to get and they have practical skills in mathematics and logic. You're more than forgiven for not having a finance degree. Then you get a masters, which is still a bit harder to get than a Masters in Finance. Employers start salivating at the thought of recruiting you. Then you do a PhD which demonstrates your awesomeness but probably doesn't alter their already rampant desire to employ you. You're also studying at a level where Quant Finance PhDs have caught up on the employability stakes. So you could even waste two years as a result, unless you really want a PhD (actually, unless someone really wants a PhD for the pure academic interest, there's a theory that they couldn't sustain the motivation to finish it).