MSc. Theoretical Physics or Computer Science

[Barny]

Explanation is too long* and involves internet gaming in my early teens, AS-level economics and a fascination with predicting the future. I've been offered an off-cycle internship as a junior quant in London this evening, so hopefully I'll be in a better position to answer that question in 6 months!

(*unless you want to come to London and buy me a beer)

Well, I live in London, but I don't think I should be the one buying the beers :P Suffice it to say, you can't predict the future, particularly when the systems are highly interacting and non-linear as with markets. I just hope you figure that out before you can do some real damage :D

 

[AlexanderMcFarlane]

I thought it would be worth an update now I'm a mid-career quant.
I'm very grateful to the comments above. They made me realise I needed to "kick in the door" rather than expect it to be opened.

I found my Theoretical Physics (TP) program at Edinburgh fantastic: It was incredibly tough going, but as Daniel Duffy mentioned had little or nothing to do with finance.

Positives
- I found it gave me a literacy and intuition that was very useful in quant finance. I found it a lot easier to follow Bouchard's thinking, for example, in Trades Quotes and Prices.
- I don't think I would have got a research role with CS, I would have moved instead into Quant Dev roles.
- Easy to find common ground with other quants that have physics / pure maths backgrounds: This cannot be underestimated.
- Lots of physicists go into academia, then quit 5y later. Very convenient, as 5y into your career, you look to build a team & know a load of junior quants

Negatives
- I found it difficult, and still do, in interviews that look for traditional pricing quant knowledge: "Jack of All Trades: Master of None"
- I initially I began my career as a Risk Quant as I struggled in interviews
- TP has an insane workload. It's hard to interview or prepare properly until graduation by which time postings have closed.
- Many students in TP have anxiety etc. issues following graduation. It may take a few months to become "normal" again. It took me 3-6 months.


Some other musings... that maybe both CS and TP have vs. MFE
- Flexibility! Great for mental health knowing you can just quit and do something nothing to do with finance. I know MFE grads that feel "trapped".
- MFE clearly will be better to get you "in the door" but it's extremely expensive and I know MFE grads that haven't got great roles but still have a huge debt to repay.
- Once you're "in the door", a degree is little use other than for common ground when networking
- I would recommend poorer students to avoid MFE due to the fees unless they can get scholarships. There is more risk attached and fewer options if you don't make the cut in quant interviews.

If anyone wants to get career advice on quant roles, particularly related to this thread, reach out to me on linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/asmcfarlane/
I may take some time to respond but as long as I don't get flooded I'll get back to you

 

[Daniel Duffy]

"I found my Theoretical Physics (TP) program at Edinburgh fantastic: It was incredibly tough going, but as Daniel Duffy mentioned had little or nothing to do with finance."

Maths is useful in finance, TP uses maths ==> TP is useful in finance? Just asking.

BTW what stuff from TP was most usefull for you in finance?

A short rant ...

Maybe some people think there is a close association. Each discipline some level of mathematics.
When the Cold War ended many physicists entered finance and many ideas were tried out, not all successfully.

e.g.

Econophysics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The madness continues: physicists are working on QM and Deep Learning with NLP. And I won't mention String Theory, gosh.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

physics / pure maths backgrounds:
IMO more experience with numerical+applied maths is much better.

And real programmng (I don't mean coding) skills.

 

[olanic]

When the Cold War ended many physicists entered finance and many ideas were tried out, not all successfully.
The madness continues: physicists are working on QM and Deep Learning with NLP. And I won't mention String Theory, gosh.

One certainly is free to label what they cannot understand as madness.
However, let me mention, that instead of repeating what had already been tried a thousand times before them, physicists, actually, attempted to find the laws. Whether these attempts have been fruitful is subject to further debate and is, anyway, of secondary importance, since only exploration of new possibilities can lead to real breakthroughs.

Alexander, thank you for sharing your experience!

 

[jarryds]

I am aware that an MFE programme is the obvious candidate to become a quant, however, I would prefer to teach myself most of the finance and focus my efforts on making myself a more rounded graduate student. I may even do an MFE after my MSc and/or PhD anyway if I feel it necessary.

Quant finance is one of the possible career paths I'm seriously considering and so I would like to hear thoughts on which programme would be more relevant or more highly thought of within the quant industry.

The courses I have applied for are:
MSc. Computer Science (Imperial)
MSc. Theoretical Physics (Edinburgh)
MSc. Theoretical Physics (Kings College London)

Just to say that I have read around this forum and I've picked up themes that the 90s and 00s were the era of the physicists and that 10s are the years of the computer scientists. In both Theoretical Physics programmes, however, I can choose optional modules in areas like like machine learning etc.

To be honest, some of these MFE degrees have gotten pretty specific and sophisticated. If you truly want to do quant, a MS in physics may be wasting your time. Although physics is heavily quantitative, it does lack some of the maths that overlap in fin math. You may find that you have to teach yourself a lot. Keep in mind, you won't be just teaching yourself finance/economics, but fin math, which is an entire other beast on its own. The days of "teaching myself to be a quant" are limited, and may even be over. Quant finance is its own thing now, and people go to school specifically for it. Ultimately, it comes down to what your goals are. If you want to chose a career in heavy quant, then get a degree that is relevant. If you just want to be someone in finance that does a more quantitative work than the average IB, then take your pick.

Side note, what is the purpose of a masters in physics? Does that have an audience of its own? If you have a poor CS background, a masters in CS could open that door for you.

 

[Hero]

I thought it would be worth an update now I'm a mid-career quant.
I'm very grateful to the comments above. They made me realise I needed to "kick in the door" rather than expect it to be opened.

I found my Theoretical Physics (TP) program at Edinburgh fantastic: It was incredibly tough going, but as Daniel Duffy mentioned had little or nothing to do with finance.

Positives
- I found it gave me a literacy and intuition that was very useful in quant finance. I found it a lot easier to follow Bouchard's thinking, for example, in Trades Quotes and Prices.
- I don't think I would have got a research role with CS, I would have moved instead into Quant Dev roles.
- Easy to find common ground with other quants that have physics / pure maths backgrounds: This cannot be underestimated.
- Lots of physicists go into academia, then quit 5y later. Very convenient, as 5y into your career, you look to build a team & know a load of junior quants

Negatives
- I found it difficult, and still do, in interviews that look for traditional pricing quant knowledge: "Jack of All Trades: Master of None"
- I initially I began my career as a Risk Quant as I struggled in interviews
- TP has an insane workload. It's hard to interview or prepare properly until graduation by which time postings have closed.
- Many students in TP have anxiety etc. issues following graduation. It may take a few months to become "normal" again. It took me 3-6 months.


Some other musings... that maybe both CS and TP have vs. MFE
- Flexibility! Great for mental health knowing you can just quit and do something nothing to do with finance. I know MFE grads that feel "trapped".
- MFE clearly will be better to get you "in the door" but it's extremely expensive and I know MFE grads that haven't got great roles but still have a huge debt to repay.
- Once you're "in the door", a degree is little use other than for common ground when networking
- I would recommend poorer students to avoid MFE due to the fees unless they can get scholarships. There is more risk attached and fewer options if you don't make the cut in quant interviews.

If anyone wants to get career advice on quant roles, particularly related to this thread, reach out to me on linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/asmcfarlane/
I may take some time to respond but as long as I don't get flooded I'll get back to you

Hello Alexander I've sent you a connection!
Would like your opinion on my situation.

 

[Hero]

physics / pure maths backgrounds:
IMO more experience with numerical+applied maths is much better.

And real programmng (I don't mean coding) skills.

Hello Sir hope your well,

Could I have your opinion on my situation?

Masters choice physics or computer science?

Hello, I'm new to this site and was hoping to get some advice on my master's choice. Currently I have an offer for a master's from imperial for optics and photonics( specialised field in physics) and warwick for computer science. Imperial starting next month, Warwick in 2 weeks... Haha. My...

quantnet.com

 

[AlexanderMcFarlane]

Hello Sir hope your well,

Could I have your opinion on my situation?

Masters choice physics or computer science?

Hello, I'm new to this site and was hoping to get some advice on my master's choice. Currently I have an offer for a master's from imperial for optics and photonics( specialised field in physics) and warwick for computer science. Imperial starting next month, Warwick in 2 weeks... Haha. My...

quantnet.com

I ended up as a VP in quant trading. An MSc in Theoretical Physics didn't get me there but it undoubtedly opened the first door. An MSc in CS would not have done that.

I would suggest that Masters degrees are really rubber stamps. You actually learn a lot but really an MSc degree just signals that you can handle a year of intense study. In that respect, you need to pick a programme that is notoriously hard else your rubber stamp is only worth the skills you learned, which as I said before are pretty much rounding errors to your current skill set.

You have the same situation as I, in that your undergrad university is rubbish. Leeds, in the general scheme of things, is not a bad university but when you are competing with top tier wannabe-quants you're in no-mans land. If you do an MSc at a top tier University you will see how much more they know than you do and it will be eye opening as to why employers continually write off non-target universities.

I don't think I would have gotten a quant gig without my MSc in TP, and I massively credit it to ability to gain instant interest from hiring managers. People want to talk about physics because it's really interesting. No-one really cares about CS.

In comparison to my undergrad experience, I applied for 140 finance, actuarial and quant jobs with my undergrad in physics. I had 5 interviews, and 1 offer. That was from Commerzbank who basically gave me a lifeline effectively doing data entry, that I'm exceptionally grateful for. In comparison, during masters degree, I took most of the tough module and managed to keep a coursework average (means little as coursework was 20%) of 98%. With these grades and the reputation of Edinburgh's Physics Department I applied for 40 roles and had 80 interviews. One investment bank actually circulated my CV multiple times around various global desks to the extent that they overwhelmed me with interviews.

I would emphasise that you're not suddenly going to become a wizard at probability questions from a masters degree. That was one mistake I made and I ended up flunking every interview during my degree, purely because the obsession of maintaining an unrealistic course average meant I was exhausted physically and mentally with no time to prepare.

I got a job as a Risk Quant at Nomura under an excellent mentor and just hit the ground at 110mph from day 1. Continually working hard and a desperation to prove yourself is the key from the moment you get in the door of a firm. My masters degree was useless from the day I signed the employment contract. From this moment it's about just working your ass off and building a strong reputation within the firm. Having said this, my masters degree did mean that I "knew" the right things when talking with quants and I think that you can never really know how valuable that "stamp" of approval is as you can't live two lives.

As a benchmark, I do know people that took the CS route and struggled to get goods quant roles: They were forever penned in as "quant devs" from day dot. Despite most quant work these days being bugfixing, it's difficult to get into the really sexy roles unless you command some respect as a researcher. Developers just don't get the same career trajectory.

In summary, my advice would be:
1. Do the TP Masters but make sure it's at a top university - Edinburgh just about cut it for me but I wouldn't go much lower down QS rankings.
2. Buy all the quant interview books and spend time every weekend absorbing them and getting really damn good at them. Know every question off-by-heart.
3. Get internships (somewhat circular on 1 & 2)