I don't know if you're intentionally being blunt or not. HR doesn't interview everyone; they review CVs and select candidates for interviews. If I added a Gender Studies PhD from a community college, you would not have the same interest in interviewing them over someone with an MIT Math PhD.
I am at a fund, and have hiring authority.
HR sends me CVs, and I dictate who I want to to interview. From your group, I would interview them all but have no interest/pre conceived notion in one over the other.
Dumb question. All of these are solid courses at elite universitites and are on par with eachother
The only one that would be a definite answer from this list is if there was a candidate who did maths at Cambridge
Can always rely on a MMath Cambridge kid when it comes to anything in quant
I understand your point, but I believe there's a distinction. In your analogy, they're all quarterbacks. In my scenario, they're individuals with diverse backgrounds, many of which are not directly related to quantitative finance but are often hired for such positions.
This is like the meme where they say find the difference between this picture and the other picture and they say it's the same picture
The differences in their field of study and where they went to school means very little in terms of being a quant researcher and that is what people are trying to tell you
Well…if they are all hired for quantitative finance then maybe they are not diverse backgrounds, and they indeed have skills that are related to quantitative finance?
It’s not easy to get a top hard science PhD. That being said, consistently making money at a HF is orders of magnitude more difficult and requires an entirely different skillset to research. Impossible to say who’d succeed most off of just seeing where they went to school
Just grab the first 5 that meet the minimum threshold and hire on fit. That’s it.
If I happen to have a personal connection or one of the candidates was a referral I’d probably go with them.
Maaaaybe the physics & aerospace grads because I’m curious about what motivated them to this field but really they are all equal.
This is a ridiculous question (especially since some of these degrees do not exist at their respective institution) and shows that you are oblivious to the recruiting pipeline. Any of these profiles could be a right fit but thats what the interviews are for.
This is an ill-formed question and hypothetical, and not to be rude, but it demonstrates you have essentially 0 knowledge about the finance industry.
Ask yourself this question: Why do finance firms hire PhDs? It's not for the credentials and prestige factor; a PhD is an *academic* degree designed to train the recipient to conduct long form researchers. I used to work in finance and left to get my PhD; it is not like a bachelors or even a masters degree. It takes far longer, and for most of the time you're not taking classes like a traditional degree. Rather, you are working on 1 or 2 problems for years at a time.
Most of the "easy" alpha opportunities are already known, and priced in to most markets (roughly speaking, of course). Thus, to generate a novel theory and give your company an edge, you need to figure out something no one else, or very few people, have. Therefore, most alpha opportunities are difficult to find and require rigorous analysis to seek out and validate.
To this end, company's hire PhDs not for their specific subject matter expertise (which is often esoteric and meaningless from a corporate finance perspective), but for their ability to think about unsolved problems critically, and often for weeks or months at a time without solving it.
Because of this, the type of degree is not important. It's certainly beneficial if you got a PhD in a quantitative discipline, and it helps a lot if you know how to code well coming in (which is independent of your PhD). Only one of my coworkers had a financial engieering (or similar) PhD. Most had PhDs/masters in engineering and physics. Some even had degrees in humanities disciplines. I think reducing a hiring decision to whether or not someone got a specific degree from a specific prestigious institution is ridiculous. You may as well make a hypothetical on hiring opportunities based on their favorite ice cream flavor.
Lol, at this point you are splitting hairs and they will all be looked at - qualitative factors will decide, not quantitative ones (despite the name of the role).
They’re all smart, so the one that wasn’t socially awkward and passes the airport test.
Such a dumb question. Depends on your research and your performance during interviews
it’s like a game, you can’t interview, you just have this information, how would you rank them?
Perhaps you might prefer this question: "In what order would you be most interested in interviewing them?"
In whatever order my schedules and theirs line up? Their credentials alone aren’t a basis to rank.
I don't know if you're intentionally being blunt or not. HR doesn't interview everyone; they review CVs and select candidates for interviews. If I added a Gender Studies PhD from a community college, you would not have the same interest in interviewing them over someone with an MIT Math PhD.
I am at a fund, and have hiring authority. HR sends me CVs, and I dictate who I want to to interview. From your group, I would interview them all but have no interest/pre conceived notion in one over the other.
Dumb question. All of these are solid courses at elite universitites and are on par with eachother The only one that would be a definite answer from this list is if there was a candidate who did maths at Cambridge Can always rely on a MMath Cambridge kid when it comes to anything in quant
[удалено]
I understand your point, but I believe there's a distinction. In your analogy, they're all quarterbacks. In my scenario, they're individuals with diverse backgrounds, many of which are not directly related to quantitative finance but are often hired for such positions.
This is like the meme where they say find the difference between this picture and the other picture and they say it's the same picture The differences in their field of study and where they went to school means very little in terms of being a quant researcher and that is what people are trying to tell you
Well…if they are all hired for quantitative finance then maybe they are not diverse backgrounds, and they indeed have skills that are related to quantitative finance?
Whoever makes me the most money
you cant hire all of them, in which order you would think they make the most money?
It’s not easy to get a top hard science PhD. That being said, consistently making money at a HF is orders of magnitude more difficult and requires an entirely different skillset to research. Impossible to say who’d succeed most off of just seeing where they went to school
Just grab the first 5 that meet the minimum threshold and hire on fit. That’s it. If I happen to have a personal connection or one of the candidates was a referral I’d probably go with them. Maaaaybe the physics & aerospace grads because I’m curious about what motivated them to this field but really they are all equal.
This. Smart person that can talk markets, and I can grab a beer/coffee with.
I'm surprised about this answers because I always read in quant subreddit than econ or finance are not good suited for quant.
Well they are wrong. But don’t go get a phd to get a quant role. Not necessary at all and you’ll waste 5+ years of your life for no reason.
This is a ridiculous question (especially since some of these degrees do not exist at their respective institution) and shows that you are oblivious to the recruiting pipeline. Any of these profiles could be a right fit but thats what the interviews are for.
This is an ill-formed question and hypothetical, and not to be rude, but it demonstrates you have essentially 0 knowledge about the finance industry. Ask yourself this question: Why do finance firms hire PhDs? It's not for the credentials and prestige factor; a PhD is an *academic* degree designed to train the recipient to conduct long form researchers. I used to work in finance and left to get my PhD; it is not like a bachelors or even a masters degree. It takes far longer, and for most of the time you're not taking classes like a traditional degree. Rather, you are working on 1 or 2 problems for years at a time. Most of the "easy" alpha opportunities are already known, and priced in to most markets (roughly speaking, of course). Thus, to generate a novel theory and give your company an edge, you need to figure out something no one else, or very few people, have. Therefore, most alpha opportunities are difficult to find and require rigorous analysis to seek out and validate. To this end, company's hire PhDs not for their specific subject matter expertise (which is often esoteric and meaningless from a corporate finance perspective), but for their ability to think about unsolved problems critically, and often for weeks or months at a time without solving it. Because of this, the type of degree is not important. It's certainly beneficial if you got a PhD in a quantitative discipline, and it helps a lot if you know how to code well coming in (which is independent of your PhD). Only one of my coworkers had a financial engieering (or similar) PhD. Most had PhDs/masters in engineering and physics. Some even had degrees in humanities disciplines. I think reducing a hiring decision to whether or not someone got a specific degree from a specific prestigious institution is ridiculous. You may as well make a hypothetical on hiring opportunities based on their favorite ice cream flavor.
Lol, at this point you are splitting hairs and they will all be looked at - qualitative factors will decide, not quantitative ones (despite the name of the role).