Biologist Quants

[Energetic]

@ chiral



Consider a possibility that a potential junior simply doesn't know enough about finance to have informed preference between rates and equities. He just wants (and/or needs) to move, period. All the guy is really trying to sell is his oversized brain and certain technical aptitude that he is trying to show-off by doing some standard exercises on his own time. What is so wrong about it? Remember too that these people cannot read any minds and get tons of mutually exclusive advise precisely because line managers develop secular opinions about how the resume should (not) look like. Sorry if I sound a bit annoyed but I just had a chance to help out a very talented friend who was practically unable to set his foot foot in any door. I had a chance to see how it looks from the other side. And let me tell you: it ain't pretty.

[veroniq]

chiral3,



I'm with Energetic on this. How is a junior fresh from the PhD/Masters able to have a preference in the asset classes/areas, given that for quants it's actually not that different at the entry level - the particular projects/environment/role is way more important?

As you said "tools are incidental not primary", but so is the experience, especially compared to a) brains b) certain type of practical thinking/ways around applications.

You can't say you have really worked with something until.. well... you have really worked with it. And by that I don't mean academia.

I think people who actually understand the tools (along the background logic and with their limitations) and learn fast are slightly more useful than people who did some project replicating techniques they vaguely understand.

[chiral3]

That wasn't exactly my point. And, no, someone doesn't necessarily need to know where they should go, but they should demonstrate that a calorie was burned on the broader context, especially in a market where there are 10 "oversized" brains for every 1 job. Certainly someone that needs a job to put food on the table doesn't have to justify their motivation, but they also shouldn't expect to be hired by people that care very much about their careers and personal development. However, I see hundreds of resumes, from recruiters, from the dean's the the top US MFE programs, and these junior people are often thinking in broader terms. That tells me that they understand what and why they are choosing this path and are potentially longer-term prospects. I'll speak for myself and other managers that care about their work product and the happiness and careers of their employees. I see a selection bias and the managers that don't think in these terms and they often arbitrarily hire these junior people just to chain them to a chair and whip them all day and they are miserable. I've seen this happen to more than a few people from this phorum. Anytime from 1980-2007 this was probably less of an issue.

[Energetic]

Nobody was ever born with the context attached. MFE grads could get some of it via internships or by osmosis. People who are locked in the ivory tower don't have the same access. My own sad experience was that in the beginning everything I knew about quant finance I learned from Hull. Was it good? No. Could I do any better? Unfortunately I didn't know a single person who could explain the context to me. Perhaps, an MFE program is a good idea just for this reason but for someone who needs to put the bread on the table it's not necessarily an option. Does this lack of context indicative of long-term potential? I don't see why it should be.

[Maggette]

I am doing non finance related work at the moment (optimization and forecasting) for a small software company. It's fun, educating ( I knew next to nothing about integer optimization) and challenging. But I will try to enter the world of finance and insurance next year, even though I will definetly work on plan B while trying.



So I am, quasi by construction, with Energetic and and veroniq.



But I also do understand chiral3's point of view. Sure, if you got some entry candidate, who has some toolbox (math, math modelling, coding) you want him to have at least a, mmh well, broad understanding of markets and a rough idea of if and how he might be able to add value to what you are doing....and why he decided to try to enter the finance business.



IMHO another point is that you probabliy don't have a choice. Me personally would love in the energy/real commodities field ( I am kind of fascinated the mix of commercial, physical/technical and quantitative aspects of this business). But this interest came by



-reading academic books even though all of them claim to be written by practioners for practioners), like the books from Geman, Eydeland and Weron

- reading academic papers

- related stuff on this phorum

- things I hear from some personal contacts in the industry

- stuff on the web

....

So my first my choice isn't that well informed...for the simple reason beacause I never worked in this sector.



And second, given my less than impressive cv, I don't think I can afford to apply just to some asset class because I think I like it? I mean at the end of the day I depend on "the other side". They have to decide if they think I can add value. And since I don't know exactly what is neccessary to be a productive part of a functional and operating financial company, I can't decide a priori to whom I should advertise my skill set? Right?

[LostBiologist]

Wow, I seem to have started something of a debate.



@Chiral3: I appreciate your bluntness: constructive criticism is very useful. That said, I approached things from a techniques viewpoint because it's pretty likely that if I described my current experience in terms of biology, lots of people would have no clue what I'm talking about. I'm still not entirely sure what you mean by the broader context: are you talking about knowledge of the financial industry in general or a more specific long-term career plan?



@Energetic/Veroniq I tend to agree with you on this one: there's a bit of a chicken/egg situation where you are expected to know a lot about an industry in which you have likely had little experience so far. To a certain extent, I think this acts as a bit of a filter for applicants ie. if you can't do the research and work out what's going on then you probably aren't cut out for the job in the first place. This is also why I'm posting on forums (and networking IRL as well, obviously): talking to people seems to be the key way to get this kind of knowledge. If you've got any advice for me, I'm all ears.

[MadMax]

My limited experience so far has been that brains are overrated and the interview process is somewhat random.



At entry level, the best you can do is work hard, interview anywhere you are offered an interview and don't torture yourself about what "you should say" "what they want to hear", etc. Just go to any interview you are invited to, keep learning, be yourself and keep going until you find someone who likes you enough to hire you. Then if you have multiple offers that is the time to think what you want to do.



I would still follow C3 advice when describing, writing CV: in your previous experience put context. Don't try to guess what the other side is looking for, so don't censure yourself by omitting important stuff because "lots of people would have no clue what I'm talking about". Describe what was the purpose of your research (context, objectives) and only after do you include techniques you have used; unless your work consisted in developping some techniques in which case you still want to include areas of application/applicability.

[sv507]

Lost Biologist



Doesn't your university have a finance society that organises networking events, internships etc? Thats your chance to really ask people from the industry what they are doing and see where you could fit in.



I don't think you will find any part time internships.



Are you sure you want to be a quant? as opposed to eg exotics trader, structurer,...



You might want to go to the Thalesians talks to find out more about the area and network...thalesians

[LostBiologist]

Thanks sv507: Thalesians sounds like a very good idea.

[mj]

My experience is that most quants are such because they got a mathy PhD and realized that the academic career was either non-viable or poorly paid. They then looked for a career which leveraged their skills and was well paid and ended up as quants.



What sort of quant tends to be a random function of what their first job offer was.



So I never bothered to grill people on why they wanted to switch, since I regarded it more as an exercise at seeing how creative they were at coming up with reasons rather than an indicator of genuine interest.



I originally learnt financial maths because I was fed up with being asked at academic job interviews for pure maths jobs if I could teach financial maths.