Lately, I had an interview in one of the investment banks in London for the position in the Fixed Income Research. The position was not an entry one as I had some experience with the stuff they were doing. I said that I was a Master's student at my university, as if I started working from September I would have only Master's degree (I need at least one more year to finish my PhD).
The guy I was speaking with told me that although he thinks I deserve at least associate position (I had prior experience), he can offer me only a second year analyst. He told me that this is because they don't offer any entry level associate positions to Master's students. Only MBAs and PhDs are eligable. I told him that I am sure that after 1 or 2 more years I need to finish my PhD I will not be more clever then I am today. What is more, I will probably forget a lot from this what I learned in finance (as I am doing PhD in Economics and I had MSc in Finance before). He agreed with this, but told me that these are the rules.
I was thinking why they offer Associate positions to MBAs and PhDs, but only Analyst positions to Master's. Case of MBA's is simple. Usually MBA students have already a lot of experience, because they need it before they boarded on the Top MBA program. Offering them Analyst position would be like wasting their potential. And what about PhD students? I think they get Associate positions not because of their experience (because they don't have it) nor their knowledge (because this knowledge is usually useless), but because of their... age! Usually PhD are simply too old to work just on the Analyst position! Can you imagine a PhD (of age let say 27) who is working at par with 21 old who just finished his BA? I don't!
Although I am pursuing PhD at very strong university, I believe that this rush on financial markets for PhDs is unjustifiable. PhDs usually are not much more effective in day-to-day work than typical Master students, but the this is just trendy to have many PhDs on the trading desk...
Friday, August 3, 2007
Why they give more to PhDs?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
For those who have no idea what it takes to get a Ph.D. will not understand why they put more emphasis on a Ph.D. It's not just that they are older, after going through the rigorous training, most Ph.D.'s can endure the long hours without complains. They have been trained to take the daily pressures that they have gone through and their level of maturity surpasses far more than your analyst. I work in a market research firm and I can definitely tell the difference, most of the analysts just feel as if they are entitled to the job, most are young and inexperienced with an attitude of superior complexity. So for you to say that by giving them an associate position is not justified it just show how much you do not understand that degree for you to be commenting on it.
I have a PhD in computer science and I want to work in equity/fixed income research. What more will I need to get such a role at an associate level.
Post a Comment