Unsure of my career, and therefore my degree - LSE vs Warwick
I am waiting to hear back from Cambridge Maths, and undoubtably that will be my firm choice if I receive an offer.
However, if I get rejected, my dilemma lays with which 'insurance' I should attend. I have received offers for Warwick (Maths) and LSE (Maths and Economics). My problem is that I do not necessarily know which career within finance I am interested in. Warwick is very well respected for its Maths department, and could hold a base for quantitative work. However, LSE is probably more career-orientated (I am a big fan of this) and has a world-renowned economics department. The economics part of my degree could be helpful for a broader education, and would probably leave me in better stead if I wanted to enter something like IB.
I really don't know which specific sector I want to enter, and at the moment, am basing my choice off of monetary return. There are a couple companies I like (mainly due to a mix of culture and pay - one being Jane Street), but I'm not sure how marginal of a difference degrees play when applying to these roles over. I am planning on visiting both sites, as that may influence my decision, but I am interested in hearing some more perspective on my options.
Much appreciated, thanks for reading.
No one cares what degree you do for traditional finance roles like IB. If you want to do IB you should definitely pick LSE. If you want to do quant trading then you'd be better off at warwick.
I would just warn you that quant trading is much harder to break into than IB (that's why it pays almost triple at some companies), and so going to warwick to exclusively do quant trading might not be the best idea given how few spots there are and how meritocratic the process is. A lot of the offer holders are BMO-level mathematicians so just keep it in mind. Not trying to dissuade you.
Warwick is also a good school for IB.
Generally speaking, i think you need to figure out what area of finance you're interested in. IB is very different to trading and requires an entirely different skillset.
Thanks for the response.
I have a question regarding quant trading. Is it possible to 'prepare' yourself for getting a role, or is it weighted a lot more heavily on natural talent and ability? For example - Imagine I have a portfolio of trading algorithms I have created, and they make a respectable return. Will this be valued highly, or will it come down to how quickly I can do mental maths in an interview?
From what I've heard, IB is a lot more systematic, and you can prepare to get a role. In general, attend a target --> Do as many side projects/join as many societies etc as possible to get your foot into the door --> Get spring week experience --> Get an internship --> Get an offer off the back. Not easy, but if you prepare far in advance, your odds can go up significantly.
I ask because although I am not particularly naturally talented (compared to BMOs at least), I have made it pretty far through hard work, patience and time.
Thanks again for the response - I'm going to spend this weekend doing some research into different areas and see what interests me.
Have a nice evening/day.
IMO medalists are also hard workers, If you want to break into anywhere be it IB or prop shops, regardless of your skill sets, you need to put in the work.
Don't listen to people who say only IMO break into Quant Trading, most people don't know about this career path, but with exposure to so many career fairs they get up to speed, buckle up their probability techniques and Mental Maths speed, in short, there is a book for grinding probability and market making problem sets(go on Reddit to download the Bible and join the group chat )
Finally, you like Maths, that's why you took the courage to pursue it further. You don't need to be an IMO to understand probability or do basic arithmetics, just stay disciplined, get good at one programming language for now, and interview properly (practice how you answer questions ), Grind Joshi probability guide or Harvard stats on YouTube, practice questions and repeat.
1) I suspect that the Warwick offer might be significantly higher than LSE (3A* v A*AA??) - this might play a factor in what you'd decide for an insurance
2) Warwick deffo gonna be better if want to continue studies in Maths (MSc, PhD), however, LSE will make it a bit easier for finance careers due to influence of the culture around you - however, both options will certainly be open from both institutions
No right/wrong decision here IMO, the fact you're away of the careers and posting on here at this stage already speaks a lot about your motivation/potential, so which target uni you go to shouldn't really be a binding factor
Thanks for the response.
1) I am on a gap-year currently, so I have already achieved grades sufficient for the institutions. I still need an insurance because if I do get a Cambridge offer, it will be attached to a STEP condition (a yearly offer exam statistically around 50% of people fail), meaning there is still some risk. However, I am able to enter any other institution unconditionally, so grade wise, my insurance does not matter.
2) I think this is where my problem lies. Whilst I find doing maths fun, I've chosen it mainly because it's my strongest subject and it leads to a wide range of careers. I don't actually care about learning the subject, just getting from point A to point B in my career in the most enjoyable way possible. I feel like a lot of maths students (particularly at institutes such as Cambridge/Warwick which are known for their maths) actually have a true passion for their subject - they want to know as much maths as possible. If I could skip from point A (finished sixth form) to B (good career) I would, and would happily never touch maths again unless it was used in said career. Like I said, I still find doing it fun, but only fun relative to other subjects I could be studying.
If LSE is better career wise (which, ultimately, is my main reason for attending university), I feel like it would undoubtably be the better choice.
Having said that, a maths degree is so versatile. You can transition into so many good careers (finance, software, engineering etc) with it, which perhaps gives it justification to be studied for career points too.
//////////
Thanks again for the response. I think perhaps I'm overcomplicating things - you are correct about there not being a wrong decision necessarily. Once I visit both institutes, the actual university life itself will probably make the decision easy.
Have a nice day/evening.
1) Excellent - congrats on that
2) If you'd be good enough to ace Warwick maths, LSE maths should be relatively comfortable in comparison. So long as you don't mind studying econ, then LSE would probably be a smoother ride.
Could always start at LSE and move to Maths with Econ instead (as in same dept so shouldn't be any issues). If you're fairly certain that you want to do finance (and not go down a career in maths), it's likely that LSE will be just fine for anything you want to go into
Difference between LSE and Warwick for IB is very marginal in pure direct terms. Although indirectly, being in London and surrounded by a ton of people gunning for IB will have an influence on your motivation for applications. This isn't to say everyone at Warwick is lazy though.
If I believed I had the aptitude for quant, I would consider picking Warwick as it would leave the door open for quant and very much allow you to recruit for IB. Realistically if you can't break in from maths at Warwick you weren't going to break in anyway.
For context, I originally interned as a quant for one summer before making the transition to more traditional finance. In my opinion, I really don't think that Warwick will make a massive difference in terms of quant recruitment and you should go for LSE instead because quant shops don't care about where you went to college at all, unlike traditional finance. As long as you are sharp enough to get good scores on the OAs (which they give to like basically everyone who applies) you will get interviews. In traditional finance, though, the LSE name will matter a lot more... just look at who's breaking into the top London banking groups and PE firms out of undergrad–LSE (along with Oxbridge) has the most representation at these firms and this will help massively with networking and recruitment. These are just my two cents, though.
If uni doesn't matter for quant how come the only people you see at JS are oxbridge + imperial maths grads?
So, for a little bit of context, JS is a very lean shop relative to banks, and they are arguably the best trading firm right now (Jump and HRT give them a run for their money). Since they don't hire that many people and they're the best they can choose the cream of the crop. Now if you look at where the very best students for math and statistics go (e.g. IMO medalists), they're most likely going to be at Oxbridge or some other prestigious university in the states. Now if the top kids all go to certain institutions, it really isn't shocking that these institutions have more representation at one of the best trading firms because their students are just better and it shows in a very meritocratic interview. I promise you that in a prop trading firm like JS, where each trader is making thousands of trades each week, they don't care about where you went to school. Their traders are literally working with millions of dollars on a weekly basis. They would never choose a less qualified/smart candidate just because they didn't go to your list of schools because one bad trader could cost them a shit load of money. I know this might be hard for some of you IB kids to wrap your brain around, but quant is genuinely meritocratic.
As a current Warwick student, I can say I've seen people place into De Shaw, Optiver, CCI, etc. But you also have to consider whether you want to live in London or on the outskirts of Coventry.
Lol you don't need to be a top notch maths grad to get into CCI if that's the end goal
Sunt nulla veniam voluptate. Aut incidunt fugiat reprehenderit saepe recusandae qui ex a. Repellat est amet eligendi. Et dolor excepturi eos architecto veniam a qui. Dolores veniam autem rerum consequatur hic minus. Ad quia veniam eos fugit quia id corporis.
Molestiae aut nihil voluptate id est itaque dolorum in. Corporis laboriosam distinctio voluptatem. Quia aliquid in ut in minus. Aut vero maiores voluptas accusamus et sunt quasi. Ut vel voluptatem repudiandae natus quis.
Eaque eligendi maiores impedit. Veritatis quae aut qui debitis et sit harum corrupti. Necessitatibus voluptatem labore debitis. Rerum harum necessitatibus unde voluptas.
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...