LSE vs UCL for Quant

I know UCL math is way better than the math at LSE (yes yes LSE is know for E and doesnt have straight math etc etc) but UCL isnt the best for math, so do people think LSEs prestige make up the difference in math rigor for quant (specifically trading ik research prob no and dev Im not interested)? Whilst quant isnt financial and basically very mathematical, will LSE prestige in finance industry atleast let me get some internships and close its gap with UCL math in other ways? (As id prefer LSE ofc)

Unfortunately, due to how competitive getting a job in the quant industry is, universities that are more mathematically rigorous are usually the better choice. I know a few people who are quants and they said that most people that work in the industry go to those high tier universities: Oxbridge, Imperial, UCL, etc. As you mentioned before, LSE is known for econ and unfortunately, the strong reputation of LSE is tied in other financial sectors like IB rather than in Quant. That is a big misconception that many people have and is the reason why LSE does not really produce as may Quants as other unis do. My advice would be to go to UCL if you are serious in wanting to become a quant.

I run a hedge fund. Our tier-1 UK unis for quant are Cambridge, Imperial and Warwick (maths) - these three names are considered equally competitive, and it all gets down to the technical skills that the candidates have acquired (and the courses that they have taken at university). Second-tier unis are Oxford and UCL. LSE unfortunately does not make the cut as it is not well known for maths.

LSE has a great reputation in finance/economics. However, when it comes to Maths, we would put it in the same tier as Durham, Bath, Edinburgh, KCL etc. Bearing in mind that the job market for quant analysts is small (compared to IB/PE/VC or Finance), and a good analyst can help their PM to run hundreds of millions of capital already. There is no shortage of great talent from COWI+UCL already.
In IB, an degree from a prestigious univ would help your team win a mandate. However, in HF, your technical capabilities can make a great impact on whether your PM can make serious money. So as long as you graduate from COWI+UCL, our selection criteria will focus heavily on your technical skills, rather than which COWI univ you have studied at.

Are there any other Universities you would consider for a quant job if the child did a Maths degree from? Asking as from what I can currently see - Imperial, UCL is geared so much to international students that the UK graduates even if very bright may not get in as they have less seats for uk graduates. Oxbridge - well there the issue is that you are competing against depravity......large focus at Oxbridge is on of late meeting the Diversity tick box and widening participation criteria candidates....... they often get in even if they miss their grades. So if a child who is a brilliant has to end up say going to Birmingham , Bath, Lancaster, Bristol - Would your company give them a chance to interview or not ?

Are there any other Universities you would consider for a quant job if the child did a Maths degree from? Asking as from what I can currently see - Imperial, UCL is geared so much to international students that the UK graduates even if very bright may not get in as they have less seats for uk graduates. Oxbridge - well there the issue is that you are competing against depravity......large focus at Oxbridge is on of late meeting the Diversity tick box and widening participation criteria candidates....... they often get in even if they miss their grades. So if a child who is a brilliant has to end up say going to Birmingham , Bath, Lancaster, Bristol - Would your company give them a chance to interview or not ?

I run a hedge fund. Our tier-1 UK unis for quant are Cambridge, Imperial and Warwick (maths) - these three names are considered equally competitive, and it all gets down to the technical skills that the candidates have acquired (and the courses that they have taken at university). Second-tier unis are Oxford and UCL. LSE unfortunately does not make the cut as it is not well known for maths.

What about Warwick MORSE? Is that seen as a good subject to get into quant?

I know UCL math is way better than the math at LSE (yes yes LSE is know for E and doesnt have straight math etc etc) but UCL isnt the best for math, so do people think LSEs prestige make up the difference in math rigor for quant (specifically trading ik research prob no and dev Im not interested)? Whilst quant isnt financial and basically very mathematical, will LSE prestige in finance industry atleast let me get some internships and close its gap with UCL math in other ways? (As id prefer LSE ofc)

Hi. Im not a professional ,like the self proclaimed HF manager above, and I did ask the question to begin with but I have spoken to a few people in the industry now (that I can and have proper evidence to check for myself as I got their LinkedIn) . From what i've learnt it depends 1, on whether its buy or sell side, and 2 what your goals are. I have met multiple quants now some from bristol and lse (many others older but with lots of experience) and most of them did a masters (common ones being Imperial Math and Finance etc). Whilst its true Oxbridge and Imperial make the most quants, if your genuinely academically good enough and aren't aiming for the top of the top (I'm talking like the highest band like 150k+ out of grad) then you can make it without the most elite tier uni credentials. I'm unsure if the other commentor works at a very small or elitist HF but I even spoke to an LSE grad at Jane Street (who also did their PHD at LSE for Financial Stats). Competition is still insane and you ought to still go to a top school (I think bath and bristol may cut it if your willing to do a masters) but unless you want a quant RESEARCHING role specifically, your fine. Some firms (especially smaller shops) bunch together or mix the roles of research, trader and dev but in generality, a researcher ought to be a grad from top top school with math master or phd, dev ought to do cs and trader you need a gentle mix of both. This is not to say devs dont use math or researchers dont code (as many will) its just how heavy they weigh. Many do a simply google search and see something like "quant researchers program 90% of the time" and believe they are experts of the field. Unless I've gotten info from a hyper specific source, their programming does NOT entail that of devs with cs focus. The people I spoke to (specifically quant traders as thats what Im interested in) emphasised a knack for good statistical/mathematical intuition and decent programming, as opposed to incredibly strong mathematical modelling ability or knowledge of 10000 programming languages. Take this with a grain of salt but speaking on multiple platforms and being fortunate enough to speak to people I am blessed to have contact with has concluded me with this. If anyone strongly disagrees or has alternative opinions feel free to share.

Also go read Alex Karp's book "The Technological Republic" and aim to make an actual, real impact in the world in modern industries. You have decided to close off your mind to a small subset of the finance space that largely serves itself and I urge you to rethink while you still can. Don't kid yourself that the world of finance is there to improve the world either; it's not - it's out to enrich itself and occasionally its clients too.

I run a hedge fund. Our tier-1 UK unis for quant are Cambridge, Imperial and Warwick (maths) - these three names are considered equally competitive, and it all gets down to the technical skills that the candidates have acquired (and the courses that they have taken at university). Second-tier unis are Oxford and UCL. LSE unfortunately does not make the cut as it is not well known for maths.