Understanding the W in COWI

5

Warwick Math Institute lists only Bsc Math. The other Math combos @ Warwick are through the other departments jointly with the Math institute.

When W gets mentioned as a part of the COWI group for math prestige, is it only for the Bsc Math or the reputation extends to the other math combos @ warwick?

Would a quant shop differentiate between W's Bsc Math vs W's Bsc Math+X

Reply 1

audible-flea

6

there is some light jabbing towards joint degrees, but roughly speaking it will extend - Warwick is considered to have strong statistics and economics departments as well. Maths + Stats and MORSE would be desirable for those looking to go into quant, investment banking, consulting etc. In fact it seems virtually everyone on MORSE has similar aspirations and many are successful. Typically MORSE students don't take much maths though and your pure choices are mainly limited to fields useful in statistics like functional analysis, measure theory, etc., I think if you want to do a lot of maths Maths + Stats is the better call. Even Maths + Physics would get a lot of people going into the financial sector.

Not quant but many stats modules at Warwick carry actuarial exemptions if you perform well in them.

Reply 2

Banny Leung

5

Original post

by chiragindia

Warwick Math Institute lists only Bsc Math. The other Math combos @ Warwick are through the other departments jointly with the Math institute.
When W gets mentioned as a part of the COWI group for math prestige, is it only for the Bsc Math or the reputation extends to the other math combos @ warwick?
Would a quant shop differentiate between W's Bsc Math vs W's Bsc Math+X

For quant shops, they know straight Maths is the flagship course of Warwick. And they want you to take as many maths courses as possible. So a maths + or with joint degree will definitely put you at a disadvantage to straight maths applicants.

For other roles, it does not matter whether you take straight maths or joint maths. The Warwick name will be enough to bring you to the interview shortlist.

Reply 3

hassassin04

17

Original post

by Banny Leung

For quant shops, they know straight Maths is the flagship course of Warwick. And they want you to take as many maths courses as possible. So a maths + or with joint degree will definitely put you at a disadvantage to straight maths applicants.
For other roles, it does not matter whether you take straight maths or joint maths. The Warwick name will be enough to bring you to the interview shortlist.

I very much doubt that for example abstract algebra modules (say group theory) would be viewed more positively for quant roles than pretty much any third year stats module. Employers usually don't even look at exact modules you've.

Reply 4

Banny Leung

5

Original post

by hassassin04

I very much doubt that for example abstract algebra modules (say group theory) would be viewed more positively for quant roles than pretty much any third year stats module. Employers usually don't even look at exact modules you've.

This is exactly my point. Firms do not care about what modules you take, but they do want to get the best candidates in a maths-heavy interviews. Perhaps there may be exceptions, I just cannot see how a joint degree candidate (say maths and Econ/philosophy where they spend 50% of their time in maths) can beat a straight Maths student on advanced maths topics such as PDEs, Stochastic Calculus, Brownian process etc which are liked by quant funds and are taken by straight maths students in their 3rd/4th year. Honestly I am not sure if joint maths students are allowed to take those advanced modules as they may not have the necessary foundational knowledge.

Reply 5

hassassin04

17

Original post

by Banny Leung

This is exactly my point. Firms do not care about what modules you take, but they do want to get the best candidates in a maths-heavy interviews. Perhaps there may be exceptions, I just cannot see how a joint degree candidate (say maths and Econ/philosophy where they spend 50% of their time in maths) can beat a straight Maths student on advanced maths topics such as PDEs, Stochastic Calculus, Brownian process etc which are liked by quant funds and are taken by straight maths students in their 3rd/4th year. Honestly I am not sure if joint maths students are allowed to take those advanced modules as they may not have the necessary foundational knowledge.

I am pretty sure there is (at least used to be) a lot of flexibility in choices of modules for joint degree students as well. The variance of what people end up doing is massive and a lot of straight maths students graduate with absolutely no knowledge of stochastic calculus/brownian processes/probability theory etc and end up a lot less prepared than somebody on a joint degree who made appropriate (for industry) choices.

So I'd say what matters is the modules you pick - not for your CV, but for yourself, both in the job and during the recruitment process. Joint degrees (philosophy and also to a lesser extent econ) make your "useful" choices narrower but I would not say it's going to be inferior to an average maths student if you choose the right things.

Reply 6

Banny Leung

5

A lot of those advanced topics have pre-requisite requirements ie you need to have certain other courses before you are allowed to take the advanced course. So for joint degree, I am not sure if this is possible from a workload perspective because your commitment to the other Joint subject.

I guess perhaps if your joint degree is Physics or Statistics, you might probably be fine. But for joint degree with econ, philosophy or CS, I am not sure if you have the requires vigour in maths.

Even you manage to get an internship at a quant fund, you are likely to have other interns who are doing PhD in maths or physics. If you do not know what you are talking about, you will be screwed anyway

Reply 7

audible-flea

6

Original post

by Banny Leung

This is exactly my point. Firms do not care about what modules you take, but they do want to get the best candidates in a maths-heavy interviews. Perhaps there may be exceptions, I just cannot see how a joint degree candidate (say maths and Econ/philosophy where they spend 50% of their time in maths) can beat a straight Maths student on advanced maths topics such as PDEs, Stochastic Calculus, Brownian process etc which are liked by quant funds and are taken by straight maths students in their 3rd/4th year. Honestly I am not sure if joint maths students are allowed to take those advanced modules as they may not have the necessary foundational knowledge.

with all due respect if you are unsure of this ("Honestly I am not sure if joint maths students are allowed to take those advanced modules as they may not have the necessary foundational knowledge") then you don't seem well-placed to claim that firms prefer straight maths. The course for Brownian motion is shared with the Stats department! The only strict prerequisite would be Measure Theory - there's a course offered by the maths department and a lighter course by the stats department and Maths + Stats/MORSE students have the option of either. A student would perhaps want something like Theory of PDEs or Functional Analysis I/II as well for culture/fluency reasons - and I'd be surprised if they didn't also take ST318 Probability Theory in third year. It would be common for maths + physics students to take all these modules as well.

All maths modules are open to those on maths + stats, discrete maths (maths + CS) and maths + physics. Maths + econ and maths + philosophy are rarer at Warwick, I am not even sure if maths + econ is still offered. All maths modules are open to MORSE via unusual options but they have very few slots free for maths modules. Their "usual options" are limited by prerequisites as you intuitively guess, however I think this is mainly an issue with MORSE. Otherwise, the first two years of core maths is virtually the same and all modules are open in principle.

Reply 8

Banny Leung

5

OP’s asked if a quant shop would differentiate between a straight maths or joint maths degree in terms of hiring. His context is Warwick but I think his question would also apply to other unis say Oxford and Imperial.

If you look at the employee profiles of quant firms say Optiver SIG etc, the majority of their professionals come from a straight maths background. This is followed by JMC, and then there are a few Maths+stats. So stats say you will have a higher chance of landing a quant role if you have a straight maths background.

Reply 9

Banny Leung

5

We did not talk about competition from MMath candidates. MMath requires you to take more maths optional modules compared to Bsc Maths. Also in Year 4, you need to do a big research project supervised by the department. If you can do a great research on a topic which matters to quant shops say Probability, Stochastic Calculus, machine / statistical learning, you will definitely have a advantage in a quant job interview

Reply 10

hassassin04

17

Original post

by Banny Leung

OP’s asked if a quant shop would differentiate between a straight maths or joint maths degree in terms of hiring. His context is Warwick but I think his question would also apply to other unis say Oxford and Imperial.
If you look at the employee profiles of quant firms say Optiver SIG etc, the majority of their professionals come from a straight maths background. This is followed by JMC, and then there are a few Maths+stats. So stats say you will have a higher chance of landing a quant role if you have a straight maths background.

Sounds like a classical base rate fallacy to me. There are a lot more straight maths students than maths+stats.

Reply 11

Banny Leung

5

How do you know that the reason for more straight maths than joint maths in quant shops is purely driven by the different base numbers? Perhaps maybe because straight maths candidates have strong maths skills which enable them to nail the interviews?

Quant jobs are very math heavy, that is without any doubt. If you want to break into quant (just like so many other graduates with different background do), why would not you opt for straight maths to improve your chance?

Reply 12

hassassin04

17

Original post

by Banny Leung

How do you know that the reason for more straight maths than joint maths in quant shops is purely driven by the different base numbers? Perhaps maybe because straight maths candidates have strong maths skills which enable them to nail the interviews?
Quant jobs are very math heavy, that is without any doubt. If you want to break into quant (just like so many other graduates with different background do), why would not you opt for straight maths to improve your chance?

It appears your initial conclusion relies on sampling individuals’ degree paths without weighting by actual graduate numbers. I don’t have data on quants’ academic backgrounds, but anecdotal evidence suggests that proficiency in statistics and computer science is more directly relevant to quant interviews than most pure maths modules.

There’s a pervasive belief that abstract pure maths work makes applied topics like statistics or programming trivial to learn. In reality, mastering CS concepts/coding and statistical modelling requires targeted practice. I am quite confident that an average maths+stats/cs or MORSE student straight out of uni is better prepared for quant interviews than an average maths student and closing the gap is not thaaat trivial.

Reply 13

Banny Leung

5

I guess you are studying or have studied joint maths and want to break into quant too?

I did not study maths or joint maths in my undergraduate, so I am not biased. The comments I have given about straight math vs joint maths in applying for quant analyst / research roles are based on my hiring experience in various hedge funds which I ran in the past 20 years.

Regarding quant developers, of course CS is very important. These roles are paid much less than PM/Researcher (but better job security though). There are cases where developers going into front office, but it is very rare.

Reply 14

hassassin04

17

Original post

by Banny Leung

I guess you are studying or have studied joint maths and want to break into quant too?
I did not study maths or joint maths in my undergraduate, so I am not biased. The comments I have given about straight math vs joint maths in applying for quant analyst / research roles are based on my hiring experience in various hedge funds which I ran in the past 20 years.
Regarding quant developers, of course CS is very important. These roles are paid much less than PM/Researcher (but better job security though). There are cases where developers going into front office, but it is very rare.

You lean on “no bias” because you never studied either curriculum - but that actually leaves you without the firsthand insight of the courses, especially at Warwick and how they map to actual interviews. I studied morse but pivoted to pure maths after undergrad. I am working now..

In my experience, interviews hinge on four areas: programming, statistics, mathematics and data science. I’d weight them roughly as follows:

•

Programming: 35%

•

Statistics/probability: 30%

•

Mathematics: 25%

•

Data Science: 10%

Does that roughly match your view of what quant interviews actually test? Are you saying that studying 80% maths/10% stats/10% programming (avg maths student does something like this) is going to prepare students better for quant interviews than for example 40/40/20 split (more representative of maths+stats)?

If you've been involved in hiring then you should very well know that the vast majority of interview questions will not require very deep knowledge of pretty much anything - they are simply tricky questions akin to STEP but with undergraduate syllabi. To perform well one needs to have the bare minimum knowledge (which maths + stats covers more of) and then practice + some sharpness..

(edited 8 months ago)

Reply 15

Banny Leung

5

May I ask why you pivoted to pure maths after undergrad? What is your role now?

Reply 16

hassassin04

17

Original post

by Banny Leung

May I ask why you pivoted to pure maths after undergrad? What is your role now?

Just personal preference - I found more beauty and enjoyment in pure maths and so I pursued it. I don't think it was a good career-wise decision as in the end I ended up in a quant role in commodities trading rather than academia. Getting there and all the interviews preparation would have been much easier if my research area was stats/machine learning or just simply more applied than what I did (it involved absolutely no statistics/probability/programming).

Understanding the W in COWI

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated