The Criteria to Choose a PhD Program

[RafaelPrince]

Hello,

I know for most people applying to PhD programs, they care about their research interests and their programs' USNEWS ranking most. However, I would like to know how different the criteria will be for someone would like to be a quant.

Assume we are considering PhD programs in the same discipline, for example, math or physics. So how do you rank the following factors?

USNEWS subject ranking
location of the university
USNEWS national university ranking (or prestige of the university)

Here are some situations for Math PhD programs:
Dartmouth(50+)/CMU(34) vs Stony Brook(25) Indubitably math program in Stony Brook is much better than Dartmouth's, but Dartmouth seems much more prestigious. So for an applicant, which one will be the wise choice?

WUSTL(40+) vs CUNY(40+) Their subject rankings are similar. WUSTL is more prestigious, but CUNY has a better location. So which one to choose?

Thanks for your advice.

 

[pingu]

Assume we are considering PhD programs in the same discipline, for example, math or physics. So how do you rank the following factors?

USNEWS subject ranking
location of the university
USNEWS national university ranking (or prestige of the university)

None of those. You are looking for YOUR area of interest and YOUR FUTURE ADVISOR. The latter is key.

 

[RafaelPrince]

None of those. You are looking for YOUR area of interest and YOUR FUTURE ADVISOR. The latter is key.

I know. For most PhDs, this is true. But for people who are determined to be a quant in the future, do his/her interest area and advisor really matter?

 

[mhy]

I know. For most PhDs, this is true. But for people who are determined to be a quant in the future, do his/her interest area and advisor really matter?

Yes. Because you will burn out if you try to do a PhD without sufficient motivation to actually conduct the research.

 

[pingu]

I know. For most PhDs, this is true. But for people who are determined to be a quant in the future, do his/her interest area and advisor really matter?

Don't do a PhD as a ticket to be a quant. It will SUCK while you are in school and if you can't get a quant job after 7-8 years (since you won't have the motivation for the school), it will suck even more.

 

[Philip_Mitterrand]

The quality of the advisor is the only touchstone. Ideally he/she should be in the 40s; not someone too young i.e. lacking a wide vision of the field or someone too old/burned out that his/her prime days of research are behind with no hunger left. Your advisor must also have the chops to bat for you at times as University politics are more vicious than real politics.

Hello,

I know for most people applying to PhD programs, they care about their research interests and their programs' USNEWS ranking most. However, I would like to know how different the criteria will be for someone would like to be a quant.

Assume we are considering PhD programs in the same discipline, for example, math or physics. So how do you rank the following factors?

USNEWS subject ranking
location of the university
USNEWS national university ranking (or prestige of the university)

Here are some situations for Math PhD programs:
Dartmouth(50+)/CMU(34) vs Stony Brook(25) Indubitably math program in Stony Brook is much better than Dartmouth's, but Dartmouth seems much more prestigious. So for an applicant, which one will be the wise choice?

WUSTL(40+) vs CUNY(40+) Their subject rankings are similar. WUSTL is more prestigious, but CUNY has a better location. So which one to choose?

Thanks for your advice.

 

[RafaelPrince]

Don't do a PhD as a ticket to be a quant. It will SUCK while you are in school and if you can't get a quant job after 7-8 years (since you won't have the motivation for the school), it will suck even more.

Thanks. In fact I post this question since I would like to know how the finance industry evaluates a PhD. By his/her advisor and academic achievements? It seems impossible for the employer to be familiar with every area. By his/her program's subject ranking? I am not sure whether the employer can know different disciplines' subject rankings. By his/her university's prestige? It might be the case, but sounds ridiculous to judge a PhD like this.

 

[TraderJoe]

First of all, you should go to the highest ranked NATIONAL university (not based on SUBJECT rank) which you get admission into.
Secondly, for an advisor, you should choose a senior, chair professor who has a reputation for being very kind and graduates all their PhD students. They approve even sub-standard dissertations, and no one on the dissertation committee will raise any objections because they do not want to offend your advisor.
You can also be ambitious and try to learn as much as possible by working with a young Assistant Professor or Associate Professor who is very active in research. This is also a very good strategy. But you should remember that less that 50% of the PhD students actually get the PhD degree. Also, even though I did my PhD in the Business school which graduates all their PhD students, I have seen many PhD students in Math, Physics, and Engineering who are in the eighth, ninth, and tenth year of their PhD programs. They walk around the university with blank, hopeless looks in their eyes. Many of them get automatically terminated from the PhD program after they complete ten years without defending their dissertation.

 

[RafaelPrince]

First of all, you should go to the highest ranked NATIONAL university (not based on SUBJECT rank) which you get admission into.
Secondly, for an advisor, you should choose a senior, chair professor who has a reputation for being very kind and graduates all their PhD students. They approve even sub-standard dissertations, and no one on the dissertation committee will raise any objections because they do not want to offend your advisor.
You can also be ambitious and try to learn as much as possible by working with a young Assistant Professor or Associate Professor who is very active in research. This is also a very good strategy. But you should remember that less that 50% of the PhD students actually get the PhD degree. Also, even though I did my PhD in the Business school which graduates all their PhD students, I have seen many PhD students in Math, Physics, and Engineering who are in the eighth, ninth, and tenth year of their PhD programs. They walk around the university with blank, hopeless looks in their eyes. Many of them get automatically terminated from the PhD program after they complete ten years without defending their dissertation.

Thanks for your suggestion. I am not totally sure about the first point. For example, if I got admission from U Michigan(math top 10) and Dartmouth(math 50+), I would go to UMich without any hesitation. Did you mean that the industry cares about National University Ranking only? It seems unfair for those who went to a high SUBJECT rank program in a public university.

I also have a question about the research area. For a Math PhD student, what is best area to pursue a quant career in the future? Choices include math finance, PDE, stochastic processes, discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science.

Thank you.

 

[bigbadwolf]

It seems unfair for those who went to a high SUBJECT rank program in a public university.

Fairness ain't got nothin' to do with it.

I also have a question about the research area. For a Math PhD student, what is best area to pursue a quant career in the future? Choices include math finance, PDE, stochastic processes, discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science.

You're setting yourself up for failure this way. You're looking at the Ph.D. as a launch pad for a quant career. Over the years many posters here have rightly pointed out that's the wrong thing to do. It's true that the quant world does employ many Ph.D.s, and many of the better jobs go to them. But at the same time, the Ph.D. typically lasts many years and can often be a discouraging experience. If you go into it for mercenary reasons rather than a genuine interest in your chosen area, you won't be able to survive the numerous periods of discouragement and tedium. You have to find something that interests you because you know enough about it to be interested in it, then find out who the bright young stars are in that area, then try to become their research student. A subsequent quant career will be an unintended bonus if it comes about, but not something to be planned for. And given the long period between starting and finishing a Ph.D., maybe it can't be planned for.

If you look at those who finish the Ph.D. versus those who drop out (or get the boot), you will probably find significant differences. The former will probably know what they are going for, what they want their specialisation area to be, and what's going on in that area. That's very different from asking what is likely to be lucrative.

 

[RafaelPrince]

Fairness ain't got nothin' to do with it.



You're setting yourself up for failure this way. You're looking at the Ph.D. as a launch pad for a quant career. Over the years many posters here have rightly pointed out that's the wrong thing to do. It's true that the quant world does employ many Ph.D.s, and many of the better jobs go to them. But at the same time, the Ph.D. typically lasts many years and can often be a discouraging experience. If you go into it for mercenary reasons rather than a genuine interest in your chosen area, you won't be able to survive the numerous periods of discouragement and tedium. You have to find something that interests you because you know enough about it to be interested in it, then find out who the bright young stars are in that area, then try to become their research student. A subsequent quant career will be an unintended bonus if it comes about, but not something to be planned for. And given the long period between starting and finishing a Ph.D., maybe it can't be planned for.

If you look at those who finish the Ph.D. versus those who drop out (or get the boot), you will probably find significant differences. The former will probably know what they are going for, what they want their specialisation area to be, and what's going on in that area. That's very different from asking what is likely to be lucrative.

Thank you. Yes, I will try to choose an area that interests me most. The motivation of this poster is to see how employer evaluates a PhD and what factor they care most. According to your reply, it looks like that PhDs from a high subject ranking but low university ranking program have to suffer from a huge disadvantage.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Thank you. Yes, I will try to choose an area that interests me most. The motivation of this poster is to see how employer evaluates a PhD and what factor they care most. According to your reply, it looks like that PhDs from a high subject ranking but low university ranking program have to suffer from a huge disadvantage.

People out there know about the university but usually not your advisor or the university's ranking in finance or math. Princeton, MIT, etc., open doors. Ohio, Iowa, Florida do not. For the same reasons young hotshot academics gravitate to Princeton, MIT, and so on. The chances are higher that a hotshot advisor will be found at CalTech than at U of Illinois.

 

[RafaelPrince]

People out there know about the university but usually not your advisor or the university's ranking in finance or math. Princeton, MIT, etc., open doors. Ohio, Iowa, Florida do not. For the same reasons young hotshot academics gravitate to Princeton, MIT, and so on. The chances are higher that a hotshot advisor will be found at CalTech than at U of Illinois.

Princeton, MIT, CalTech, etc are at the top of both university ranking and subject rankings of sciences, and they are beyond my reach. My puzzle is that when the situation is as follows, what is the wiser choice?

Dartmouth(50+)/CMU(34) vs Stony Brook(25) Indubitably math program in Stony Brook is much better than Dartmouth's, but Dartmouth seems much more prestigious. So for an applicant, which one will be the wise choice?

WUSTL(40+) vs CUNY(40+) Their subject rankings are similar. WUSTL is more prestigious, but CUNY has a better location. So which one to choose?

 

[Philip_Mitterrand]

CMU>Dartmouth>WUSTL> CUNY> Stony Brook
SUNY schools are third rate craps. The ony thing better about Stony brook is its not as worse as Albany. Any job application passes through the HR team first who are the most illterate bunch and wouldn't know two hoots about your advisor unless there was a Hollywood movie made on the person. The CVs are stacked as per the school prestige...Caltech/MIT/IVYs goes up the stack and the rest bottom of the pile. Most of the PhD quants are academic rejects who couldnt find tenureship in academia only a few % make a wilful choice and landed up in finance. So there's a much more cost effective way to break in.

You are really caught up w/ prestige, aura etc than the nuances of the research which is indicative of a mercenary instinct and will only blow up in your face.
Most of the succesful PhDs are pulled by a strong desire in a very specific area which somehow corresponds to succesful completion than trying to hedge bets in all direction.

Princeton, MIT, CalTech, etc are at the top of both university ranking and subject rankings of sciences, and they are beyond my reach. My puzzle is that when the situation is as follows, what is the wiser choice?

Dartmouth(50+)/CMU(34) vs Stony Brook(25) Indubitably math program in Stony Brook is much better than Dartmouth's, but Dartmouth seems much more prestigious. So for an applicant, which one will be the wise choice?

WUSTL(40+) vs CUNY(40+) Their subject rankings are similar. WUSTL is more prestigious, but CUNY has a better location. So which one to choose?

 

[RafaelPrince]

CMU>Dartmouth>WUSTL> CUNY> Stony Brook
SUNY schools are third rate craps. The ony thing better about Stony brook is its not as worse as Albany. Any job application passes through the HR team first who are the most illterate bunch and wouldn't know two hoots about your advisor unless there was a Hollywood movie made on the person. The CVs are stacked as per the school prestige...Caltech/MIT/IVYs goes up the stack and the rest bottom of the pile. Most of the PhD quants are academic rejects who couldnt find tenureship in academia only a few % make a wilful choice and landed up in finance. So there's a much more cost effective way to break in.

You are really caught up w/ prestige, aura etc than the nuances of the research which is indicative of a mercenary instinct and will only blow up in your face.
Most of the succesful PhDs are pulled by a strong desire in a very specific area which somehow corresponds to succesful completion than trying to hedge bets in all direction.

Thanks. I see now the view of the industry is really different from that of academia. Personally, I still choose a PhD program according to my interests and the program's subject ranking. Faculty position is always my first choice. However, if finally I find I cannot find a decent faculty position, I have to go to the industry for living.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

Thanks. I see now the view of the industry is really different from that of academia. Personally, I still choose a PhD program according to my interests and the program's subject ranking. Faculty position is always my first choice. However, if finally I find I cannot find a decent faculty position, I have to go to the industry for living.

Sounds you are not sure what you want and why? Which choice is more 'fun'?

Most of the succesful PhDs are pulled by a strong desire in a very specific area which somehow corresponds to succesful completion than trying to hedge bets in all direction

 

[RafaelPrince]

Now I am only considering between discrete math and probability. At least I know what I don't want. I don't want to pursue any other PhD degrees but math. I won't study algebra or geometry. I understand I should enjoy the years when I devote myself to research. As for the placement, let it be.

Sounds you are not sure what you want and why? Which choice is more 'fun'?

Most of the succesful PhDs are pulled by a strong desire in a very specific area which somehow corresponds to succesful completion than trying to hedge bets in all direction