poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#81
Report 4 years ago
#81
(Original post by VannR)
So much IB talk on this forum, but why so little discussion of quantitative analysis? Is it because it requires a great deal more mathematical/computational skills than IB, making IB seem like an 'easier' option? I'm just curious because quants receive very good salaries as well, but no one seems to speak about wanting to be one.
Substantially lower pay than IB, requires more study (a good PhD for most of the non-crappy jobs), boring work on the sell-side with buy side jobs extremely competitive, etc.

Being an algotraiding quant at a quant/HFT hedge fund is an interesting job that pays well. Being a risk/derivatives quant at a bank is a boring job that doesnt pay well (compared to IB). 90% of quants are in the latter bucket.
0
reply
samba
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#82
Report 4 years ago
#82
(Original post by Brubeckian)
Hey, this is unrelated but how hard it to make bank via making a top selling app?

I mean say I created something equivalent of flappy bird which was extremely popular for a short period of time, would I be looking at a couple of grand or millions?
90% of people will go for a free version if it's available [even if it's far worse]. Otherwise, 70% of the price you manage to sell it for multiplied by number of downloads from the big markets!

For free apps monetised by ads, mileage can vary, but it'll mostly depend on how much it's used after it's downloaded, and the longevity of popularity.
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#83
Report 4 years ago
#83
(Original post by VannR)
Would you say that only graduates from top places have a chance? I'm studying computer science at RHUL from the autumn, but I am also continuing my study of mathematics beyond my current 'Further Maths' level of understanding (partial differentiation, linear algebra, theoretical statistics), so that I can hopefully get onto a good masters course in the field.

I guess I am asking whether you think that if I get a BSc at RHUL, and a MSc at a higher-ranked place (possibly Oxford), if I would have a realistic chance of getting into an 'algorithmic trading' position. I'm hoping that quant recruitment focuses a little more on skills and ability than having studied XYZ, just so long as it was at a good university, as is the case for IB.
University prestige matters a lot, RHUL isn't good but having a MSc from Oxford will compensate.

A MSc puts you at a disadvantage compared to PhDs for the good jobs (e.g. not risk), but the Oxford alumni network might help you

Computer science can get you typecast as a code-monkey unless you can convince people you know a lot about machine learning (impossible with just an undergrad degree, you would need a MSc in something like stats/ML for any decent algotrading job and again you would be competing with PhDs for the top jobs. But the Oxford name helps a lot, a MSc from there looks better than a PhD from Manchester or whatever)
0
reply
Princepieman
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#84
Report 4 years ago
#84
(Original post by poohat)
University prestige matters a lot, RHUL isn't good but having a MSc from Oxford will compensate.

A MSc puts you at a disadvantage compared to PhDs for the good jobs (e.g. not risk), but the Oxford alumni network might help you

Computer science can you typecast as a code-monkey unless you can convince people you know a lot about machine learning (impossible with just an undergrad degree, you would need a MSc in something like stats/ML for any decent algotrading job and again you would be competing with PhDs for the top jobs. But the Oxford name helps a lot, a MSc from there looks better than a PhD from Manchester or whatever)
Not sure if I agree with your PhD comment.. Once it gets to that stage, the PhD brand name isn't as crucial (obviously has to be a decent research uni).
0
reply
VannR
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#85
Report 4 years ago
#85
(Original post by poohat)
University prestige matters a lot, RHUL isn't good but having a MSc from Oxford will compensate.

A MSc puts you at a disadvantage compared to PhDs for the good jobs (e.g. not risk), but the Oxford alumni network might help you

Computer science can you typecast as a code-monkey unless you can convince people you know a lot about machine learning (impossible with just an undergrad degree, you would need a MSc in something like stats/ML for any decent algotrading job and again you would be competing with PhDs for the top jobs. But the Oxford name helps a lot, a MSc from there looks better than a PhD from Manchester or whatever)
Thank you! RHUL is not exactly prestigious, I know, but they actually have a very significant focus on machine learning and 'big data' in their research - the co-inventor of support vector machines works there. This is what made me think that going there would be beneficial over going to Warwick, especially since I am interested in postgrad.

Also, I'm rather open about the prospect of doing either a PhD or an MSc, since I already have some meaningful research proposals in mind. I also have a few 'connections' which may help out in the future, so I guess I'm on a good path.

It helps to get the perspective of someone who is further down the road, though; I'm not going to be an undergraduate until September .
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#86
Report 4 years ago
#86
(Original post by Princepieman)
Not sure if I agree with your PhD comment.. Once it gets to that stage, the PhD brand name isn't as crucial (obviously has to be a decent research uni).
Not true, it matters enormously. Finance is all about prestige at pretty much every level. You are going to struggle to get a good quant job with a redbrick PhD
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#87
Report 4 years ago
#87
(Original post by VannR)
Thank you! RHUL is not exactly prestigious, I know, but they actually have a very significant focus on machine learning and 'big data' in their research - the co-inventor of support vector machines works there. This is what made me think that going there would be beneficial over going to Warwick, especially since I am interested in postgrad.
Doesnt really matter who works there, its just an undergrad degree. Intro machine learning is pretty much just intro machine learning anywhere.

Warwick would probably be better if your goal is to get into IB, the computer science department isn't top tier but people just assume that it must be good since the maths department is so great (Warwick is a weird university in that the quality off MORSE/economics and the b-school gives the whole university an aura of prestige even though the rest of the university isn't better than Edinburgh/Kings/etc)

It doesnt really matter where your undergrad is from if you have a top tier MSc though, and a first from RHUL will get you into a top MSc program.
0
reply
SarcasticMel
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#88
Report 4 years ago
#88
Sell your soul, easy.

If you really want it, ain't that hard. Pretty much everyone I went to uni with, who really wanted it, got it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Brubeckian
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#89
Report 4 years ago
#89
(Original post by poohat)
Doesnt really matter who works there, its just an undergrad degree. Intro machine learning is pretty much just intro machine learning anywhere.

Warwick would probably be better if your goal is to get into IB, the computer science department isn't top tier but people just assume that it must be good since the maths department is so great (Warwick is a weird university in that the quality off MORSE/economics and the b-school gives the whole university an aura of prestige even though the rest of the university isn't better than Edinburgh/Kings/etc)

It doesnt really matter where your undergrad is from if you have a top tier MSc though, and a first from RHUL will get you into a top MSc program.
This may be a daft question but is Imperial considered good for breaking into quant/trading?
0
reply
VannR
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#90
Report 4 years ago
#90
(Original post by poohat)
Doesnt really matter who works there, its just an undergrad degree. Research != teaching.

Warwick would be better if your goal is to get into IB, the computer science department isn't top tier but people just assume that it must be good since the maths department is so great (Warwick is a weird university in that the quality off MORSE/economics and the b-school gives the whole university an aura of prestige even though the rest of the university isn't better than Edinburgh/Kings/etc)
I honestly do not care about IB; in fact, the main reason that I want to be a quant and get into finance at all is because you get to do mathematics and computing all day in a real-time environment whilst getting paid more than a lecturer . Though it is true that research is completely different matter to teaching, in the 3rd year at RHUL they have machine learning courses and elementary computational finance where you get to use support vector machines and benefit from the expertise of the people who invented them.

I know prestige matters, but I can't help but get the feeling that for my specific requirements, RHUL is a bit of rough diamond.
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#91
Report 4 years ago
#91
(Original post by Brubeckian)
This may be a daft question but is Imperial considered good for breaking into quant/trading?
yes
0
reply
fuuji
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#92
Report 4 years ago
#92
(Original post by VannR)
Would you say that only graduates from top places have a chance? I'm studying computer science at RHUL from the autumn, but I am also continuing my study of mathematics beyond my current 'Further Maths' level of understanding (partial differentiation, linear algebra, theoretical statistics), so that I can hopefully get onto a good masters course in the field.

I guess I am asking whether you think that if I get a BSc at RHUL, and a MSc at a higher-ranked place (possibly Oxford), if I would have a realistic chance of getting into an 'algorithmic trading' position. I'm hoping that quant recruitment focuses a little more on skills and ability than having studied XYZ, just so long as it was at a good university, as is the case for IB.
Doesn't further math already involve partial differentiation,linear algebra and stats? I wouldn't worry about being a quant when you're doing A levels. I thought I was the **** at maths in A levels and then suddenly you're studying real analysis, you have no idea what you're doing and now you actually enjoy differential equations and linear algebra because they still feel like maths.

Yes quant recruitment is much more focused on skills, go read quantnet its a good forum. You're very likely going to need to have a Phd and no a masters from oxford is not better then a Phd from manchester, someone with a Phd with have at least 4 more years in that field then you and will have done real research something, which is particularly important in quant trading. Quant start is also a good blog. This is specifically a good post

http://www.quantstart.com/articles/W...a-Quant-Trader

Yeah you could possibly go be a derivatives pricing quant or a risk quant with an MFE, but then again the top risk quant at the bulge bracket I worked at had his Phd from oxford in physics.

Again your in A levels, I thought I was going to be a quant when I was in A levels, wait till you actually know if your good at maths. I got 2.1 and firsts in all my maths and stats modules at LSE and there were kids so much smarter then me.
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#93
Report 4 years ago
#93
(Original post by VannR)
I honestly do not care about IB; in fact, the main reason that I want to be a quant and get into finance at all is because you get to do mathematics and computing all day in a real-time environment whilst getting paid more than a lecturer . Though it is true that research is completely different matter to teaching, in the 3rd year at RHUL they have machine learning courses and elementary computational finance where you get to use support vector machines and benefit from the expertise of the people who invented them.

I know prestige matters, but I can't help but get the feeling that for my specific requirements, RHUL is a bit of rough diamond.
The problem is that in 90% quant jobs you won't be doing much/any maths, you will be a C++ monkey developing libraries and producing excel models for traders. The interesting quant jobs where you actually do things that might be classed as research are in algo trading, and tend to be ultra-competitive

Also while I said above that a CS degree might get you typecast as a code monkey that isn't necessarily bad - it means you won't get a good quant job but its not like working in IT (which you can do with an undergrad degree) or quant dev is a bad paying jobs as such, you will still be making £100-200k in mid-career (although you won't be doing math). Its just nowhere near IB, where you would expect to be in that range within 5 years or so.
0
reply
Brubeckian
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#94
Report 4 years ago
#94
(Original post by poohat)
The problem is that in 90% quant jobs you won't be doing much/any maths, you will be a C++ monkey developing libraries and producing excel models for traders. The interesting quant jobs where you actually do things that might be classed as research are in algo trading, and tend to be ultra-competitive

Also while I said above that a CS degree might get you typecast as a code monkey that isn't necessarily bad - it means you won't get a good quant job but its not like working in IT (which you can do with an undergrad degree) or quant dev is a bad paying jobs as such, you will still be making £100-200k in mid-career (although you won't be doing math). Its just nowhere near IB, where you would expect to be in that range within 5 years or so.
Say you wanted to get into trading, would a CS degree be seen as a 'negative' or would it not really effect anything?
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#95
Report 4 years ago
#95
(Original post by fuuji)
Yes quant recruitment is much more focused on skills, go read quantnet its a good forum. You're very likely going to need to have a Phd and no a masters from oxford is not better then a Phd from manchester, someone with a Phd with have at least 4 more years in that field then you and will have done real research something, which is particularly important in quant trading. Quant start is also a good blog. This is specifically a good post
Its not better in any objective sense but you are more likely to find a quant job. A MSc from Oxford would easily get you a job in back office risk or something, its not clear that a PhD from Manchester would get you any job in IB/buy-side at all.
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#96
Report 4 years ago
#96
(Original post by Brubeckian)
Say you wanted to get into trading, would a CS degree be seen as a 'negative' or would it not really effect anything?
Not sure, I know nothing about the undergrad IB job market

Probably a slight negative compared to math but not by much, insittutional prestige and interview skills usually dominate subject choice at undergrad level
0
reply
samba
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#97
Report 4 years ago
#97
(Original post by poohat)
The problem is that in 90% quant jobs you won't be doing much/any maths, you will be a C++ monkey developing libraries and producing excel models for traders. The interesting quant jobs where you actually do things that might be classed as research are in algo trading, and tend to be ultra-competitive

Also while I said above that a CS degree might get you typecast as a code monkey that isn't necessarily bad - it means you won't get a good quant job but its not like working in IT (which you can do with an undergrad degree) or quant dev is a bad paying jobs as such, you will still be making £100-200k in mid-career (although you won't be doing math). Its just nowhere near IB, where you would expect to be in that range within 5 years or so.
You make 100-200k in tech within 5 years quite easily if you're remotely decent anyway.
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#98
Report 4 years ago
#98
(Original post by samba)
You make 100-200k in tech within 5 years quite easily if you're remotely decent anyway.
I don't believe that, not in banks. IT doesnt get much bonus afaik and they are on roughly the same salaries as everyone else. 5 years would be a an associate with salary around £60-80k, I don't believe IT people are getting £20k+ bonus.

Also getting into the £100-200k range is 'easy' in finance, the problem is that tech doesnt have much upside and moving above that range is very hard. At VP level and above its bonus that drives your comp, and I don't think people in tech get bonuses above 10-20% of salary (but I could be wrong, if you are actually in tech then I defer to you)
0
reply
VannR
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#99
Report 4 years ago
#99
(Original post by fuuji)
Doesn't further math already involve partial differentiation,linear algebra and stats? I wouldn't worry about being a quant when you're doing A levels. I thought I was the **** at maths in A levels and then suddenly you're studying real analysis, you have no idea what you're doing and now you actually enjoy differential equations and linear algebra because they still feel like maths.

Yes quant recruitment is much more focused on skills, go read quantnet its a good forum. You're very likely going to need to have a Phd and no a masters from oxford is not better then a Phd from manchester, someone with a Phd with have at least 4 more years in that field then you and will have done real research something, which is particularly important in quant trading. Quant start is also a good blog. This is specifically a good post

http://www.quantstart.com/articles/W...a-Quant-Trader

Yeah you could possibly go be a derivatives pricing quant or a risk quant with an MFE, but then again the top risk quant at the bulge bracket I worked at had his Phd from oxford in physics.

Again your in A levels, I thought I was going to be a quant when I was in A levels, wait till you actually know if your good at maths. I got 2.1 and firsts in all my maths and stats modules at LSE and there were kids so much smarter then me.
I have already done Maths and FM last year, doing all of the stats modules. The immediate frontier for me lies in truly understanding linear algebra, partial differentiation and going beyond a 'first course' understanding of stats.

Also, I would like to say that I am aware that everything I have studied is essentially 'analysis', and that some people don't even regard it as mathematics proper. Having looked at some of the 'real' Maths, if you'll excuse the pun, I know that I can do it.

But yes, thank you for clearing up the importance of research in quantitative analysis. I'm actually quite pleased about the prospect .
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#100
Report 4 years ago
#100
(Original post by VannR)
Also, I would like to say that I am aware that everything I have studied is essentially 'analysis', and that some people don't even regard it as mathematics proper. Having looked at some of the 'real' Maths, if you'll excuse the pun, I know that I can do it.
You haven't studied analysis yet, technically everything you do at A-Level would broadly be called applied mathematics. Intro real analysis starts with delta-epsilon proofs, which you don't cover in UK high schools
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (131)
18.3%
It's just nice to be back! (194)
27.09%
Not great so far... (257)
35.89%
I want to drop out! (134)
18.72%

Watched Threads

View All