In applying for admissions, I know they care about what you want to do after graduation. That's why they ask for short/long term goals. I want to know if they care about the where. For example, if my goal is to come back to work in a local firm in my country, how does the university perceive this? In my opinion, universities like to show off their career placement, so I'm guessing they'd want students to end up in well-known firms to attract prospective students. Can anyone shed light on this please?
do universities care where you want to work after attaining degree?
- Thread starter lobomattu
- Start date
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,165
- Points
- 273
myampol posted a pretty detailed explanation on this issue recently
http://www.quantnet.com/forum/threads/will-programs-allow-mfe-to-phd.7864/#post-74118
http://www.quantnet.com/forum/threads/will-programs-allow-mfe-to-phd.7864/#post-74118
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,165
- Points
- 273
That seems obvious to me that programs would want their alum to end up in prestigious firms. Why would they want their grads to come back to a small country and work for a no name firm. How that would make their network stronger, and salary stats better?
Even if they don't have to worry about getting you in GS, and you will find a job yourself, programs would be more tempted to admit candidates that will more likely to end up in top firms. This is finance, after all.
Even if they don't have to worry about getting you in GS, and you will find a job yourself, programs would be more tempted to admit candidates that will more likely to end up in top firms. This is finance, after all.
DominiConnor
Quant Headhunter
- Joined
- 9/6/06
- Messages
- 1,051
- Points
- 93
A university is not a monolithic entity...
When attending the installation of the new head of my old schools maths department he was bemoaning the way that so many of his most talented students go into finance. There was a bit of a silence amongst in our group broken by me explaining that umm, errr I don't do maths any more I help them do that move...
But that's just the view of one prof and it's easy to see that each academic wants their own field to prosper which conflicts with students career aspirations, but the careers office at Imperial are so dedicated to following their own personal agenda that they wrote to me and a bunch of other recruiters forbidding us from advertising jobs to their students.
For finance programs where the goal is to get a job paying good money in a well known firm the individuals and the school are much more aligned since they will put it on the prospectus for the next wave.
An objective way of measuring the importance given to careers is resources, again Imperial is a good example. The university's career department are not the brightest people on the planet and even if they weren't trolls, don't have the resource to do a good job. The business school on the other hand has good careers people and a much higher level of resource compared to the number of students.
Most university careers departments are quite shockingly small, if my firm was one of the generic recuiters I'd seriously think about offering to take them over and at least doubling the resource simply for the placement fees.
Economics is between the two positions, some academics take pride in teaching stuff that has nothing to do with finance, some target it as best they cann.
When attending the installation of the new head of my old schools maths department he was bemoaning the way that so many of his most talented students go into finance. There was a bit of a silence amongst in our group broken by me explaining that umm, errr I don't do maths any more I help them do that move...
But that's just the view of one prof and it's easy to see that each academic wants their own field to prosper which conflicts with students career aspirations, but the careers office at Imperial are so dedicated to following their own personal agenda that they wrote to me and a bunch of other recruiters forbidding us from advertising jobs to their students.
For finance programs where the goal is to get a job paying good money in a well known firm the individuals and the school are much more aligned since they will put it on the prospectus for the next wave.
An objective way of measuring the importance given to careers is resources, again Imperial is a good example. The university's career department are not the brightest people on the planet and even if they weren't trolls, don't have the resource to do a good job. The business school on the other hand has good careers people and a much higher level of resource compared to the number of students.
Most university careers departments are quite shockingly small, if my firm was one of the generic recuiters I'd seriously think about offering to take them over and at least doubling the resource simply for the placement fees.
Economics is between the two positions, some academics take pride in teaching stuff that has nothing to do with finance, some target it as best they cann.
- Joined
- 11/9/11
- Messages
- 41
- Points
- 18
I respect your opinion. However, the goal of the students that go into Finance Programs should not always be just getting a good job in a well known firm. It's exactly this way of thinking that is bringing down the prestige of the Financial Industry and overloading it with people that are in the wrong field. This industry needs more people like Fischer Black, Robert Merton, Emanuel Derman, and Stephen Ross. Smart people, those people that were born to do Finance, don't need advanced degrees (above bachelor's) to learn how to trade and price options. They can totally learn that by joining the industry, and by constantly gaining work experience. The goal of the universities that offer advanced degrees in Finance, like Master or Phd, should be to produce bright minds that can make fundamental contributions to the field of Finance, or at least are willing to work hard in that direction. To conclude, I think people should look back at the their dictionaries again, and find the meaning of the word "Academic", because that's what universities are supposed to produce.
DominiConnor
Quant Headhunter
- Joined
- 9/6/06
- Messages
- 1,051
- Points
- 93
albo, I don't believe we disagree that much, I was reflecting what the students want, not what I see as good.
I also agree that the focus on PhDs, MFEs and other academic qualifications is not idea for the industry or the staff and I see the emergence of "quantitative finance" undergrad degrees as a really bad thing.
My wife is a partner in a huge US law firm working in London and the system there for accountants and lawyers seems nearer to what we should have. You do a shorter course that explains the core of your chosen profession but you have to do a multi-year apprenticeship before you are allowed to call designate yourself as qualified.
The employer is under a contractual obligation to train you and the professional body checks that you do, because if you don't they won't let you hire newbies.
Banks vary hugely in their training, from the excellent to the boot camp and throw you into the fray model.
Also training programs are perpetually under siege from managers who don't want their staff spending time learning and of course the cost is not popular. This combines with the issue that the dumber end of managers see any form of training as "helping our staff to leave".
I also agree that the focus on PhDs, MFEs and other academic qualifications is not idea for the industry or the staff and I see the emergence of "quantitative finance" undergrad degrees as a really bad thing.
My wife is a partner in a huge US law firm working in London and the system there for accountants and lawyers seems nearer to what we should have. You do a shorter course that explains the core of your chosen profession but you have to do a multi-year apprenticeship before you are allowed to call designate yourself as qualified.
The employer is under a contractual obligation to train you and the professional body checks that you do, because if you don't they won't let you hire newbies.
Banks vary hugely in their training, from the excellent to the boot camp and throw you into the fray model.
Also training programs are perpetually under siege from managers who don't want their staff spending time learning and of course the cost is not popular. This combines with the issue that the dumber end of managers see any form of training as "helping our staff to leave".
- Joined
- 4/21/11
- Messages
- 872
- Points
- 73
It is all about the $$$.
It's a vicious cycle. Yes, technically the universities would like to be nice sweet people. However, would a prospective brilliant student want to go to a school who places student in a way that helps the country or in a way that makes them rich?
I am overstating of course. But you get the point.
Similar threads
