Last week, Patrick posted an email exchange he had with a quant who appeared to be rather frustrated with the networking process. Patrick and the commenters all came to a similar conclusion, that he was merely "doing it wrong". Sadly, the commenters got a bit side tracked with someone else who was also, "doing it wrong" (seems like a pretty common problem), so I'd like to take this opportunity to offer my observations to the original issue.
To reiterate the original issue, the problem noted to Patrick in an email by the quant was this:
Thanks for the old networking idea.Since the hiring world seems to be dominated by beer drinking extroverts, who want to be begged for an interview by Quants and C++ programming introverts in networking events, I believe companies will get what they deserve - more beer drinking working buddies. Market bubbles will burst again, the beer drinkers will regurgitate Jim Cramer and the rest of the crowd, CFAs and economists will disappear into the crowd and make fewer phone calls to their clients.
Screw networking - it is below my intelligence.
As someone who's likely more similar to this person than Patrick or many of the commenters, I can sympathize with his/her frustration. I also have an observation that may solve this person's problem, as the initial observation is, in my experience, incorrect. In other words:
The hiring world for quants is not dominated by beer drinking extroverts, it's dominated by quants.
Unless you're sitting high up the chain of command or work for a very small company, "like" tends to hire "like". In other words, if you'd like to get into an front office IBD gig, you should probably be able to relate with, and get along with, other front office IBD guys. They're the ones who will be hiring you. At the same time, if you're a software engineer or a quant, I can assure you that you will be hired by a software engineer or a quant, not a guy from the front office. The reason for this is obvious, all firms want to hire employees who will add value, and the determination of whether or not a potential employee will add value is best determined by someone who is familiar with the required skill set.
Using this fact, the process of networking becomes a bit more bearable. Remember, networking is isomorphic to making friends. They are the exact same process if you're doing it correctly. Additionally, it is easier to make friends with people you have something in common with than it is to make friends with people you don't (or worse, with people you don't respect). So, in the case of the quant above, my question to him/her would be, "why are you trying to network with people who aren't quants or software engineers?" The reality is that if you want to get a job as a quant, you should be networking with other quants. The added bonus here is that if you're a quant, you'll almost certainly find that you have more in common with other quants.
Just to bolster my argument further, take a look at the networking opportunities that every designation's governing body offers to its members. The CFAI invites CFA charter holders to network, the SOA invites ASA/FSAs to network, and neither invites the other to participate. The same thing happens with schools, NYU MBAs have NYU MBA alumni events and they don't invite the Columbia MBA alumni. There's a reason for this, and it's because "like" hires "like" (this can be extended to why top MBA programs are substantially more valuable degrees then lower tiered MBA programs).
In the end, networking doesn't have to be "below your intelligence" if you network with the right people. It will become a fun and interesting event where you get to discuss topics with people who know them as well, or substantially better than you. You'll get to meet people who you find interesting and that you have many things in common with; people you could see yourself becoming friends with. And that, in the end, is what networking must be in order for it to be fulfilling and fun; and more importantly, for it to work.
Active networking helps a little bit, but networking with quants is 100% painful. There's a reason that "quant" is a pejorative term.
Furthermore, quant jobs and interviews are much more about hard skills than schmoozing and making friends. You can be socially- and communication-stunted and still get the job; you just have to be good at what you do.
Hardcore front office quant jobs like quant traders are very interesting and lucrative, yet few candidates have strong skills in finance, math, and programming.
I'd speculate that this guy just isn't that good of a quant. A lot of people call themselves quantitative, but when you give them a programming test or ask them to answer college-level math questions (estimate pi, factor a matrix, or calculate the derivative of x^x), it is rare to get correct answers.
The angry quant is pretty common...i would say its as big a cliche as the frat-boy salesman. All quants think they are above everything and smarter then everyone but in reality the angry quant is actually the severed siamese twin of the douchebag former lax bro salesman...both wall st stereotypes come to life.
And plenty of quant-types were involved in the crash of 2007-2009...in fact, the quant space on the buyside performed much worse through that episode then the old-school discrationary guys.
Come on, not all quants are awkward assholes...
When did beer drinking and extroversion start going hand in hand?
Economists can be extroverts.
I caught on to this story a little late, but I read over the comments on the other thread and here are my two cents + story which will hopefully add to this discussion:
First my background. I went to a target and studied financial engineering for undergrad and also minored in computer science. I would consider myself “quantitative” (although maybe I should be careful using that word given its negative connotations here) but my grades weren’t very good and as a result I had a hard time getting interviews. On the flip side, I was an officer at my school’s “equivalent of frats” -- I’d be surprised if you couldn’t figure out my alma mater by now -- and was pretty social during my time there. And yes, I drank beer :). After somehow getting an interview + offer (more on that below) for a BB S&T summer internship in NYC, I went there, received an offer, and returned full time upon graduation. However, I quit that job within a year and am now at a solid prop shop in Chicago as a trader.
I can tell you for sure that I networked to get that S&T job. Did I like it? Hell no, before actually entering the industry, I 100% agreed with the “angry quant” at that time in my life. So consequently, did I try really hard? Hell no, I got lucky. It was my only bulge bracket interview (and I only had 3 interviews for that summer total) and to this day, I’m not sure why that HR lady liked me and invited me to their special breakfast the next morning, which resulted in an interview. My first round interviewer was at that breakfast, and my MD final round interviewer was an alum from my school, talk about luck. So whether you are in favor or against networking, know this. Networking is a chance game. The more you play (assuming you play it well and don’t go and shove your resume into MDs’ faces all the time), the greater your chances of winning in the long run.
But also realize this, if you are talented and confident in your abilities, once you get your foot in the door in the finance industry, networking can definitely take a backseat to your abilities in certain parts of this industry (namely the “quantitative” ones). In some respect, I agree with the angry quant. Sales and trading on the sellside wasn’t for me because I didn’t fit in well with the types of people he described (again, how I got that job without fitting in, I have no idea). However, where I disagree with him is in that I don’t believe there is a superior or inferior career path. Play to your strengths. Some people are really damn good at sales and they have the soft skills to really make an impact in their jobs in this respect. Others have superb intelligence and technical abilities that allow them to advance innovative ideas in finance.
However, with my background, I found myself somewhere in the middle. When I was trying to leave my S&T job and talking to headhunters, they were very discouraging about this fact. “You’re not quantitative enough to get those buyside jobs that are generally reserved for Ph.D’s from overseas, but you weren’t a varsity athlete and are not social enough to be a great salesperson either. Companies who want to hire the strongest in both will always pass over you.” After a few of these phone calls, I said screw it to these guys and got my current job through directly contacting the firm. Now I trade derivatives algorithmically at a firm that has a very social culture (we drink beer!)
I believe that the lesson learned here is that first and foremost, you need to figure out what you want to do and ask yourself whether you need to network for that kind of job, whether it’s quant trading or investment banking (hint: the answer is always “yes” at first). This will help you determine how much you really need to network and how much time you should spend preparing for programming/probability interviews. OR you can look at both like I did and take a risk there. Don't limit yourself. Once you get your foot in the door, you can take a deep breath and relax and pat yourself on the back, because the hardest part is done. Stay optimistic about this initial hurdle though; remember that it’s a chance game and Lady Luck often has to make an appearance before you get in.
Once you’re in, then you can think about what you want for your future (I find that too many of the kids on WSO want to talk about exit opps and future wealth before they even get in). Do you want to do less grunt work and face more clients/travel as you get to more senior levels? If so, continue building your network as many here have suggested. Do you want to gain greater trading responsibility (i.e. continue working hard) and come up with awesome quantitative ideas when you’re senior? Then maybe focus more on your hard skills and take some Coursera classes to stay sharp.
All this said, realize that everyone, no matter what industry you’re in, should have a base level of “likeability.” No one with the attitude of this angry quant will get very far in finance. Hope this was helpful.
Note: I realize that WSO tends to skew a little bit toward the networking-focused jobs (I know I’m generalizing a little bit here), so if you feel like you’re in my boat and aren’t sure about what to do, feel free to message me and I can offer my opinion.
Condescension + whining = sadness. Here's my rant, hopefully you find it as entertaining to read as I did to write!
Holy hell, did I sound like you people before I learned the meaning of the word "humility" ? I realize that you may think non-quantitative jobs don't require intelligence (or less so), but here's something to think about: some people find condescension offensive and will think you're an ass. But you say, "Patrick! I don't care what people think of me!" as you begin to pout to yourself. Your parents forgot to tell you that in the real world merit is, at best, 90% of the game. Also you're adopted, but that's besides the point.
"Screw networking-- it's below my intelligence". What an entitled douche. Hey 'broski' (since I'm a beer-drinking extroverted lax bro and all) you're not the smartest guy you know; not even close-- and you never will be: c'est la vie. Cool your tits, put your big boy hat on and realize that you can be as introverted as you want, but in the end the guys with no social skills but high intelligence aren't that smart at all-- because if they were they'd learn how to interact with the rest of humanity; they'd learn how to make networking fun or interesting; most importantly they'd learn how much of an advantage it is to have both "books smarts" and "social intelligence". = What they would not do is whine about how they suck at it, because failure only happens when you're not smart enough to solve it.
Additionally, problem solving can be augmented using the ideas of people in unrelated fields-- and that's what math is, right? Solving problems? (yes I know it's a descriptive science, but the motivation to describe is that it helps us answer a question which can arguable be called a problem.)
Let me reiterate: what an entitled douche. He is going to hate life; he's clearly already failed it.
--Patrick (not the one that this thread was in response to)
This.
I used to be a stereotypical introvert who thought socializing just for the sake of socializing was beneath me. Since then I've realized that being able to skillfully and naturally "interact with humanity" is an extremely valuable skill(perhaps the most valuable skill a person can learn in this life) and that if I'm as smart as I'd like to think I am, then it's a skill I should learn and perfect as soon as possible.
Always. Beer drinking goes hand in hand with everything! It goes hand in hand with introversion, too.
I can understand his frustration, but his attitude is shit.
If he cannot adapt to a simple 'task' like networking, I believe there would be reason to question his merits as a quant.
While I agree that his attitude is awful, I don't think you can compare how "simple" networking vs. quant work is. I know plenty of people who were bad at networking from my school who were extremely quantitative and are at top Ph.D. programs now.
Of course, I would be wrong if we're going by that definition of "quant" (the pejorative one mentioned above)
networking is not really needed to get into top PhD programs.
I think networking is w ay overrated and is used as a crutch by people who just arent that impressive in their work so they can explain away why they arent successful. I am not a total introvert, but i never got a job through networking...my networking was my performance even when i was a back-office person. I also have never seen someone who was good at their job who i felt was held back by not being extroverted snuff...maybe this can happen in a client-facing sales job where being sociable is the job, but ive never seen it in my line of work. People who are good rise and that is the same for quants...this guy is just making a bad, cliched excuse.
I agree - networking is just a more professional term for "i knew somebody". The whole theory above about like hiring like sounds OK, but honestly is just a bunch of handwaving fluff. Getting a job is a lot about knowing the right people, and knowing the right people (or getting to know them) is largely based on luck.
Like does not always hire like, and in fact someone might actively seek out those with different skills to build a stronger team.
It's completely possible angry quant is one of the few who is dealt a shitty hand several rounds. Sure, some of you have incredible strategies about how you broke in. But if you keep flipping a coin, of course you'll eventually land a string of heads. Some of us get our lucky bre ak earlier. Still, with so many applicants and so little spots, it's not always worth waiting for your chance.
Most of life is just about luck. "Smart" people love to explain things....
Ben Bernanke had a good take on it - We're all lucky bastards... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/ben-bernanke-to-pri…
Dolores necessitatibus qui harum autem autem. Dignissimos cum esse ducimus iure repellat. Debitis aut reiciendis vel enim harum nihil illo laborum. Sit suscipit temporibus sunt optio. Possimus quis qui eum possimus ut consequatur sunt.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...