I would love to get a PhD but I will likely get married in the next few years. If money were not an issue I would definitely do it. I think I will be happy in industry so I will go that route
buyicide Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would love to get a PhD but I will likely get > married in the next few years. If money were not > an issue I would definitely do it. I think I will > be happy in industry so I will go that route There is a ton of money available to PhD candidates. If you’re willing to do the research to find the money, fill out the forms, and suck up to the right people, you can do PhD virtually free (excluding opportunity costs of course).
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There is a ton of money available to PhD > candidates. If you’re willing to do the research > to find the money, fill out the forms, and suck up > to the right people, you can do PhD virtually free > (excluding opportunity costs of course). Where do you find out more about this higgmond?
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >> > There is a ton of money available to PhD > candidates. If you’re willing to do the research > to find the money, fill out the forms, and suck up > to the right people, you can do PhD virtually free > (excluding opportunity costs of course). phd’s are free in US, and that’s not a by-product of obama’s administration. once you are in, you are funded. you’re not gonna be a high roller but tuition and basic living expenses are typically covered by TA/RA/Fellow-ships. so you don’t need to do that much extra effort looking for money, at least in the US that is
Yeah, the good progams give you $25K a year and charge no tuition. The problem is the opportunity cost.
mwvt9 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > higgmond Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > There is a ton of money available to PhD > > candidates. If you’re willing to do the > research > > to find the money, fill out the forms, and suck > up > > to the right people, you can do PhD virtually > free > > (excluding opportunity costs of course). > > Where do you find out more about this higgmond? Pick the programs you are interested in and meet with the profs. If they want you in the program, they will point you in the right direction and make sure you are taken care of.
The whole PhD thing is vastly overrated imo. I prefer people with lengthy experience over Phds who spent all their time in an Ivory Tower. I do feel many PhDs come across as abit bitter; prob b/c they see their students go out and make 10x their pay within just a few years out of school. Do you really want to live in a college dorm the rest of your life as a TA/RA/Summer temp? As far as needing it, I know oodles of people without a CFA or MBA or PHD who have jobs (and paychecks) I would kill for; these things help you, they do not make you. A PhD, given the amount of time put in that could be put into work exp, is not the way to go if you want to get deep into IM imo. Its mostly just useful for Quants and that is the ickiest part of IM imo; I refuse to push Quant funds and most of my clients agree.
dracop Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Its mostly just useful for Quants and that is > the ickiest part of IM imo; I refuse to push Quant > funds and most of my clients agree. Let me guess. A finance major? Perhaps even a liberal arts major? LOL. Just LOL.
+1 bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > First of all, I don’t think anyone gets a Ph.D. in > Quant. There are Ph.Ds in math, physics, > economics, finance, music, sociology, etc… Some > of these have more quantitative aspects than > others. > > My Ph.D. is not in finance, so before I did L1 of > the CFA program, I got a lot of questions saying, > “Well, bchad, you’re obviously smart, but what do > you know about finance.” Truth is, I knew some > statistics, and a fair amount of economics, but > I’d never navigated financial statements, and I > wasn’t all that sure about all the different > things that go into equity and fixed income > valuation. I knew what options were, but not much > else about derivatives. > > After passing L1, I never got the “so what do you > know about finance” question again. I went on to > do L2 and L3 because 1) might as well complete > what you started, and 2) I was genuinely > interested in the material, and 3) it helped to > have a formal program that covered key issues in > portfolio management without requiring that I go > back and get another university degree. > > Also, there are lots of different ways to do > statistics. The way a medical researcher uses > statistics is different from the way an economist > uses statistics is different from the way a policy > maker uses statistics is different from the way a > quantitative portfolio manager uses statistics. > Yes, there are some similarities, and knowing one > helps you move to the other, but it’s not as > simple a jump as you’d think. Volatility > clustering and ARCH/GARCH models are regression > techniques, sure, but they are completely unique > to finance, AFAIK. Portfolio optimization is > fairly unique too. > > And in pretty much all statistical modeling, the > best models are based on understanding theories of > the underlying processes, and you need the CFA (or > some other source) to give you a base in that. > > As for Harvard Ph.D. students being dismissive of > CFA as rote learning, just realize that a Ph.D. > grad student from pretty much anywhere is > generally a somewhat bitter person. They’re > usually poor students slaving away being told that > they’re not really intellectually good enough to > play with the big boys (and girls) and trying to > justify every thought they have with some > reference to existing literature. It’s a pretty > degrading experience, one that often drags on for > many years, so many tend to let off steam and > justify their own plight by claiming that what > they are doing is deeper, more meaningful, more > profound than CFA or MBA programs that their > competition is doing. There are certainly ways in > which CFA and MBA can be considered “lighter” than > Ph.D. work, but it’s also true that Ph.D. is > overkill for most of life’s needs. I think you’ll > find that Ph.Ds who have had their degrees for a > while will not poo-hoo CFA and MBA so readily.
PhD > CFA > GED > being a monkey > MBA
^ The OP’s intention was not to compare any qualifications, but why people chose to do both. Maybe you should substantiate why really you are undertaking a PhD and CFA at the same time.
the reason is because i have absolutely no background in finance, and didn’t care for it until i realized how much more money i could make in it compared to what i could with a phd working in academia (we are talking potential order of magnitude differences) i am choosing the CFA over the MBA to get a good foundation of finance knowledge because i strongly believe that dollar for dollar and hour for hour, CFA is a better investment to get that knowledge than an MBA or MS finance the value of an MBA is networking, which is huge, but there’s almost no reason for someone to get a professional degree like that after spending ~10 years in school post high school
if i were to choose a single post bachelor’s degree out of {cfa, phd, mba} i would choose: - cfa for the cost-adjusted dollar gains and knowledge in finance - phd for the knowledge and passion for a specific subject - mba for the largest expected dollar gains
. sorry, spotty internet, i’m posting via free wireless @ a coffee shop
From what I gather then, there is nothing like Phd in quant and it is just a myth that these guys have a knowledge in quantitative finance?
quantitative finance, at the entry level, is dominated by programming usually the guys who can do this the best are the phds in quantitative fields because chances are, they have done programming in their studies
also, it seems like now there are more specialized degrees like the MFE or MS applied math that are a better match for entry level quant jobs than a general purpose quant phd the only problem with this, IMHO, is that phds have proven that they can work alone to get something published, whereas MFEs and MS applied math (in general) only have shown that they can take classes there is a world of difference between getting As and publishing original research in peer-reviewed journals
Okay, thanks for this.
^ no problem, mr. sunshine
dracop Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The whole PhD thing is vastly overrated imo. I > prefer people with lengthy experience over Phds > who spent all their time in an Ivory Tower. > > I do feel many PhDs come across as abit bitter; > prob b/c they see their students go out and make > 10x their pay within just a few years out of > school. > > Do you really want to live in a college dorm the > rest of your life as a TA/RA/Summer temp? > > As far as needing it, I know oodles of people > without a CFA or MBA or PHD who have jobs (and > paychecks) I would kill for; these things help > you, they do not make you. A PhD, given the amount > of time put in that could be put into work exp, is > not the way to go if you want to get deep into IM > imo. Its mostly just useful for Quants and that is > the ickiest part of IM imo; I refuse to push Quant > funds and most of my clients agree. I did a research paper in uni with canadian census data. It clearly indicates that income (on average) is maximized with a masters degree and then begins to decrease with subsequent education such as a Phd. There are also a few outliers with high school or less that make more than everybody. The chart is engrained in my brain as it was going to form part of my master’s thesis.