MS in Mathematics (Pure and Applied, not MFE or MathFin) - Quant Job Opportunities?

[drdough]

Hi,

I have been admitted into the MS in Mathematics program at NYU. This program is in pure and applied math, not mathematical finance, although I am able to enroll in classes from the MathFin program as electives. My question is, how difficult will it be for me to get a quant job when I graduate from this program? I've seen a lot of discussions of MFE and PhDs in math etc but nothing about Masters in math.

Some additional background: I have a BS in Economics and 2 years work experience in a finance-related job (not a quant job). I applied to the MS in Mathematics and not NYU's MathFin program because I am still entertaining the possibility of getting a PhD and I thought this would be better preparation, and I also think the coursework in a traditional MS sounded more interesting to me than an MFE.

 

[MRoss]

I also think the coursework in a traditional MS sounded more interesting to me than an MFE.

So what makes you sure finance for you? It makes more money but pure math is a lifestyle for people - you sound like you might be one of them.

 

[drdough]

Valid question. I wouldn't say that I'm sure, but it is something I am interested in trying out. I've done some reading about the field which has made me more interested, and if I try it and don't like it (assuming getting a quant job is an option for me) I would have the option to go back and get a PhD and do something else. Another thought I had is that if I could get a summer internship between the 1st and 2nd year of my program I could get some experience that could help me decide if quant finance is something I really want to do for a career.

 

[The_Moroccan.]

The amazing thing, is you have a BS in Economics and you got admitted in Ms in Mathematics, I think you only can do that in USA. But how confident are you to succeed? Sorry to be harsh but it doesn't make any sens to me. I got my bachelor's degree abroad in Mathematics, and I am telling you it's impossible to get to a Master's degree with students who spent not 4 years in Math. and in graduate level, you have to know topology, probability, stochastic process, statistics, Numerical analysis, operational research, game theory...that's what I would expect a graduate level student to have.

 

[Aaron Wong]

The amazing thing, is you have a BS in Economics and you got admitted in Ms in Mathematics, I think you only can do that in USA. But how confident are you to succeed? Sorry to be harsh but it doesn't make any sens to me. I got my bachelor's degree abroad in Mathematics, and I am telling you it's impossible to get to a Master's degree with students who spent not 4 years in Math. and in graduate level, you have to know topology, probability, stochastic process, statistics, Numerical analysis, operational research, game theory...that's what I would expect a graduate level student to have.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a little too broad for graduate studies? I always thought that once you start graduate level work, you start to focus on a certain topic like pure mathematics, topology, applied mathematics, probability theory, etc. Not all of them at once. At least I think that's how it works in the US. I'm not too sure though because I'm still working on my mathematics degree (sophomore).

 

[bigbadwolf]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a little too broad for graduate studies? I always thought that once you start graduate level work, you start to focus on a certain topic like pure mathematics, topology, applied mathematics, probability theory, etc. Not all of them at once. At least I think that's how it works in the US. I'm not too sure though because I'm still working on my mathematics degree (sophomore).

Correct. And you don't need four years of math to do an American MS in math.

 

[MRoss]

Agreed. Most math majors (post undergrad) try to jump for Phd right away in an area that intrigues them (i.e. topology).

Who hasn't dreamed of getting into MIT Phd Applied Math? Mmmmmmmm.

 

[The_Moroccan.]

Well, you can do that, I was only talking from where I came from and maybe why USA has to change the curriculum. You can't go to graduate level and then start the topology from zero or probability or what ever.
Well, As I said, I came to USA for my Master's degree and it was in Computer science ( Just because I didn't know about Quant positions then) But the way it works in at least the countries I know (France and Morocco) the student at the first year of high school would pick three option of course teachers would approve it, either literature, science or technics) at the second year another choice for science student either Mathematical science with heavy in Math and physics for the last two years in high scool, We had 10 hours per week of math in my last two years in high school and 7 hours/week of physics, we don't get to study nature science biology and geology though. In my last year of high school we took the probability, random variable introduction to statistics, one class of Real analysis with lim sup and lim inf ...
At the university level, only student from Mathematical science can choose MP (Math/Physics) and at my first year I had topology I (Compact, connex, cauchy suits...) and Analysis , algebra ... But by the fourth year, the student took 4 years of topology and 2 years of probability and statistics one year of game theory ...
I know that model is totally different from the one we have here. But I guess it's time to start talking about changing our model here if we want to lead the world in next 100 years.

 

[drdough]

Thanks for the responses. To answer your question, my degree is in Economics, but I also took a substantial number of math courses in college. I am confident that I will do well in the program, but I am sure that I'll have to work a lot harder than I did as an undergrad.

Anyway, any thoughts about getting into quant finance with an MS in Mathematics?

 

[MRoss]

Imho its the best pre mfe degree

 

[D C]

drdough it depends, quant employers like those with strong backgrounds in mathematics (I come from a pure math background) but by going for an MS in Math you are leaving yourself vacant to many other qualities employers look for in quants - such as, programming skills and a strong understanding of finance. It already sounds like you are unsure of your path since you didn't go for PhD in Mathematics (as most do), so I would say fill your electives with math_finance/programming_classes, get your degree and decide on the next step.

 

[bigbadwolf]

But by the fourth year, the student took 4 years of topology and 2 years of probability and statistics one year of game theory ...

No Western university has four years of undergraduate topology. If they did, they would have covered areas like complex cobordism, crystalline cohomology, spectral sequences, and elliptic cohomology by the end. Usually there is one, maybe two, undergraduate courses in topology. The first may deal with point-set topology -- compactness, connectedness, metric spaces, general topological spaces. The second may be more of the same or a bit more geometric -- fundamental group, simplicial homology, and so on. Both will be covered again at the graduate level, but faster, more streamlined, and with more technical machinery. So it is possible to start graduate studies in these areas -- if not necessarily advisable -- without having any prior exposure.

 

[MRoss]

No Western university has four years of undergraduate topology. If they did, they would have covered areas like complex cobordism, crystalline cohomology, spectral sequences, and elliptic cohomology by the end. Usually there is one, maybe two, undergraduate courses in topology. The first may deal with point-set topology -- compactness, connectedness, metric spaces, general topological spaces. The second may be more of the same or a bit more geometric -- fundamental group, simplicial homology, and so on.

You nailed it! I took one semester of topology and covered what you mentioned + Lebesgue integration, measure theory, cantor sets, etc..

 

[D C]

The first may deal with point-set topology -- compactness, connectedness, metric spaces, general topological spaces. The second may be more of the same or a bit more geometric -- fundamental group, simplicial homology, and so on.

I agree with bigbadwolf - at my school the quoted topics were included in my real analysis (ie 'real anal')...also, an algebraic topology course was offered to seniors, but I chose algebraic number theory

 

[MRoss]

I agree with bigbadwolf - at my school the quoted topics were included in my real analysis (ie 'real anal')...also, an algebraic topology course was offered to seniors, but I chose algebraic number theory

Algebraic number theory sounds awesome! What were some topics?

 

[D C]

Algebraic number theory sounds awesome! What were some topics?

the course was geared toward understanding the proof of FLT

Stewart and Tall are GREAT authors and it flows excellent, BUY THIS:

http://www.amazon.com/Algebraic-Number-Theory-Fermats-Theorem/dp/1568811195/

 

[D C]

we covered most of it, but not all of it:

start with ring theory, extensions to number fields, cyclotomics, unique factorization (fundamental theorem in disguise), ideals, and then we skipped to lattices and class-groups and then FLT

 

[D C]

Ian Stewart also wrote a great book on Galois Theory i used in another class prior to this one

http://www.amazon.com/Galois-Theory-Third-Chapman-Mathematics/dp/1584883936/

 

[bigbadwolf]

Ian Stewart also wrote a great book on Galois Theory i used in another class prior to this one

I'm going off-topic by discussing these books but his book on Galois Theory is just another treatment along the lines of Artin's classic text and has some errors in it (if memory serves, in the chapter on ruler-and-compass constructions, when I had to use another book). The book on algebraic number theory is better but -- hehe -- the idea of even sketching the proof of FLT in a few brief chapters at the end is pretty much a joke. As an introduction to quadratic and cyclotomic fields it's okay but for something seriously covering FLT, try Hellegouarch's "Invitation to the Mathematics of Fermat-Wiles." For Galois Theory, look at the books by Jean-Pierre Tignol and David Cox. I wish I'd had them during my undergrad days.

 

[D C]

the books by Jean-Pierre Tignol and David Cox. I wish I'd had them during my undergrad days

true! Cox's is a great book.

please note that the books I listed were good for introductions - if it took the former Chair of the Mathematics department at Princeton over 200 pages to prove, then of course it would take a much more in depth look