• C++ Programming for Financial Engineering
    Highly recommended by thousands of MFE students. Covers essential C++ topics with applications to financial engineering. Learn more Join!
    Python for Finance with Intro to Data Science
    Gain practical understanding of Python to read, understand, and write professional Python code for your first day on the job. Learn more Join!
    An Intuition-Based Options Primer for FE
    Ideal for entry level positions interviews and graduate studies, specializing in options trading arbitrage and options valuation models. Learn more Join!

Masters choice physics or computer science?

Hero

Joined
9/15/22
Messages
6
Points
1
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 undergrad was in physics.

Links to course page: Imperial ,,, Warwick.

I applied for the MSc in computer science because I wanted to improve my employability for quant roles and for general SE. Although, in my undergrad I did some scientific programming in python and molecular simulation with a HPC it's still not enough for either Job.The photonics course is more experimental work and in my opinion seems more fulfilling. So which is better overall?
 
Last edited:
On the Warwick course: I've just opened a role for a Python Dev in my startup and 99% of the 260 applications are "wannabe data scientists" - it's a flooded market. You won't be any better at coding for it and if anything the "data scientist" angle might just put people off...

I would pick Imperial, on two accounts
1) Branding is everything. Hiring managers don't care "who your supervisor was" or if you "did hard modules" - it's as simple as "did they go to XYZ university ? If yes: telephone interview." They have 10000 CVs to filter so it's no wonder.
2) Don't underestimate the utility of being in London for interviews. Warwick is in a field in the middle of nowhere. At Imperial you could do an interview in your lunch break.

I would say though that Optics is a bit far out for being a quant. However, you won't be the first or the last. Just try and minimise the labs as they will be totally useless for you!
 
Last edited:
I appreciate the response.

I noticed on your profile. You have the ideal background for quant research work. TP + lot of relatable work experience + experience in programming. I can definitely see why the banks were impressed and circulated your CV. But was the Edinburgh brand reputation really the main factor?

I noticed in another thread, although it's 12 years old, executives looked at Communication and skills as a key factor. Brand rep probably does have a big influence but maybe the difference between Warwick and imperial is negligible? Sorry for clarifying I'm still trying to understand the employer outlook/ thought process.
This thread: How to Get a Quant Job, Advice from Wall Street Executives

Also, regarding the point 2. Interviewing would definitely be easier. Unfortunately, as I don't have a relevant internship I'm considering doing something in the third term. Which may be feasible alongside a Comp Sci diss, ( no lab work). Thoughts on this?

Also I really appreciate you replying! It's really helpful knowing someone walked a similar path.
 
Back
Top