Target school, non-target discipline?

Join a finance club, or association of any kind. Are you looking to be an analyst or associate?

Most grad positions on offer are for analysts, unless you have an MBA. I think, however, that higher degree grads can go straight to associate quickly if they perform well.

I suppose this next question has been asked a million times, but what is some essential literature to break into the field?

I know an undergrad history major going into asset management, so you're good.

Obviously, you have to keep up with the news (so Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Dealbook from NYT, CNBC, and Dealbreaker). A good place to start would be the technical guide this website offers. It's very much straight to the point, and they answer pretty much whatever questions will be thrown at you. Also look at some of the vault guides if you can.

As for books, try reading Liar's Poker and Too Big to Fail. And, for your spare time if you want to read something satirical, Damn It Feels Good to be Banker.

As long as it's a TOP university and you do well, but then again with that background, a lot of doors stay open.

I have to ask; as someone that has the academic chops to get into one of the 'top schools in the world', I would think you'd have the acumen to research what it is you want to do BEFORE entering into a long term obligation like a PhD. What made you change your mind?

Happypantsmcgee,

I see how my initial post could have misled you into thinking that I am going to stop my PhD training. Actually, I am graduating next year. What I meant was: I'm thinking of getting into IB instead of an academic career. I'll still answer your other questions though (because I've just been filling out application forms and could use the break...)

The reason why I chose to commit myself to a three-year programme (it is three years in the UK, and I'm at Cambridge fyi) was because I was lured by the prospect of holding a PhD from a very good university. Even before applying to the PhD, I was entertaining the idea of IBanking, however I decided to put that aside for a while because I believe that the Cambridge PhD title is a good investment career wise: it opens doors. In other words: even if I fail to get into IB, I'll still get a half-decent job.

As I see it, the main problem with an academic career is the lack of excitement. It is a lot of work but at a sluggish pace dictated by rigorous methodologies. The fruit of your massive efforts could be a string of academic publications with titles like "a herp approach to the herpaderp derp of herp in 1902: new sources and perliminary results". Other academics will then discuss your works, some will agree, some will not and you work might become a reference. Total impact on world: negligible. What I mean to say is that academia (especially history) is an ivory tower.

IBanking or Asset Management, on the other hand, appeal to me because of their apparent meritocratic nature, fast pace, and high pay. In academia, you can be an outstanding scholar, but you might not agree on something with somebody on top and they will make sure you never get promoted. Although I am sure similar things can happen in banking, because performance can be quantiatively measured in this sector, delivering results will lead to correct rewarding I think.

Further, from what see from the outside, Ibanking appears to have the fast-paced lifestyle that I yearn and enjoyed before joining academia. And yes, bankers too live in an ivory tower, but the industry has significant real-world impact and the day-to-day activities pertain to events that are actually happening now. And "now" is happening fast!

And, like I've said, academia is a lot of hard work. Work without fixed hours: you got a week off? time to relax? don't think so... you'll need to be thinking about that dissertation or that article or that source... IBanking too puts a lot of stress on people. But think of it this way: I'm currently in the third year of my PhD, and I have an absolutely shitty pay (really). Getting a job in academia will mean more of the same shitty wages for the first 5 years. In IBanking, I'll get paid more for the same effort. So instead of (in the best case) making 100k in 10 years by working at a top university, I'd rather be (if I work hard enough) making 250k in 10 years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in it for the money alone. My goals in life are different: I want to open my own school. For this I need money. And if there's one thing I've learned from years of academia (aside from tying a knot) it is that there is no money for education unless it comes from rich folks with big hearts. I want to become one of those rich folks.

I don't know how it works in the UK, but from what I've seen in the US and elsewhere a PhD in the humanities will actually be a negative, at best neutral impact, on your resume no matter how good the university is (even Harvard). The story, obviously, is completely different for a quant PhD.

The problem with having a PhD in something like history and breaking into banking is that you have already made a very strong commitment to a career that is completely unrelated to the field. As such your interviewers are not going to trust that you are actually truly interested in the industry or that your sudden interest isn't just whimsy. They will also question if your knowledge of finance and modeling is up to par. Familiarity with STATA is not going to be a huge help. Another problem is age. I guess you would still be young if you went the PhD route right after undergrad. But suffice to say a first year analyst (and yes, that the level you'll likely start out since you are neither quant nor MBA) with a PhD in history is very, very rare in this world.

Sorry to be so pessimistic but that's just how I see it. I speak from experience, sort of, because I have a masters from a US target (albeit in a much more relevant field) and even with that it took quite a while to convince people I was serious in shifting gears from the academic route to the private sector. As good an investment a doctorate from Cambridge might be, in this case it is actually going to be baggage that you're going to have to address very carefully. Again, this is from the US perspective so maybe they are more forgiving about career changes in the UK. But the typical U.S. BB analyst starts thinking about and planning for a career in finance quite early, lining up his ducks from freshman/sophomore year to progress from internship to offer. His resume presents a coherent story line of someone who has been interested in and is committed to finance for the long haul.

So my advice to you? You've got to know your shit down pat 120% in terms of finance knowledge/technicals and have the most killer answer for "Why Finance?" and tell it convincingly. Your interviewers will be skeptical about your finance knowledge so you ought to know the markets/macroeconomy/basic finance well. As for telling your story, you have to somehow weave together elements of your resume that builds up, convincingly, to your interest in finance. Do you have any private sector experience? Internships? Or have you been in school this whole time? It will be very difficult to craft any kind of compelling story that finally leads in to your present interest in finance if all you have is academic experience.

Finally, think twice about the divisions you are interested in...why IB or asset management? Have you talked to people in the industry? Don't take this the wrong way, but do you really know what IB and asset management entail? (again, this is what Interviewers will be thinking when you show up) I would say that for someone with your background Equity Research or Credit Risk might be a better fit...in my opinion it is more cerebral and ever so slightly closer to academia in nature. IB is probably the most diametrically opposed thing to academia and thus will be the hardest sell. Last advice is to use your Cambridge connections and network like crazy.

Just my 2 cents...