Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
It won't take a year to learn how to code like the pros. But the masters at least gives him a basic understanding of algorithms and programming. Also going to an Ivy League Uni shows some level of competency/intelligence. Thus it would give the holder a chance to step into the quant world and start learning on the job. Similar to how investment banks hire MBAs as associates. Instead of a MBA, a quantitative masters would be more useful in this new world. Which would be better if a candidate has no experience, do nothing and try to get in; or get a quantitative masters and show interest and some
Basic knowledge?
|
I guess no one took insight from my long post. So I'll try to keep it short.
This is how I see it. Banking is about learning a given set of processes. It is entirely different for quantitative trading. For that, you really deal with open problems. I have not experience in banking but you're face with questions like these:
- What is the best set up for execution?
- What is the ideal testing period?
- What is the best way to gauge market sentiment?
And usually, for any firm, there are competing arguments for every question. Here, it is where experience pays of and not just mere educational qualifications. That's why it isn't too clear cut as doing something to add value but more of doing what to add value.
Or take this example. A bachelors in banking can reach the MD level. You'll find more Masters and PhD holders at the top levels of quantitative trading. Shouldn't that in itself signify how far ahead of everyone in terms of research and proprietary knowledge you'll need to be in order to reach the top.