London: Why can't you do a non-finance MSc to break in to IB?
At an undergraduate level, a LinkedIn search shows that regardless of whether someone studied history or finance at the LSE, they still manage to get IB jobs. A similar search concerning master's at the LSE yields a different result - IB jobs predominantly (or almost entirely) fall at the hands of finance or management graduates, with almost no other master's being represented. This holds across the UK's top universities. There are a few possible explanations to this phenomenon:
- Selection bias: for example, BSc International Relations graduates might be more open to working in banking than MSc International Relations, with the graduates of the latter program likely intending to specialize in and later pursue a career in international relations. I've read here that this explanation is not entirely valid, and that something else is likely at play given the sheer lack of non-finance/management graduates in London IB.
- Selectiveness: for example, the MSc Finance program at the LSE is notoriously competitive, though this selectiveness can also be found in other LSE programs (e.g. MSc Data Science with a 9% acceptance rate).
- Relevance: finance and management master's are more relevant to a career in IB, and hence recruiters recruit from these programs. This explanation doesn't quite hold because of how recruiters don't really discriminate much with respect to undergraduate programs.
So why then do you think this phenomenon exists? I'm not asking because I'm salty or anything (I still haven't chosen a master's), but I am honestly just curious, especially because those same banks that predominantly recruit from MSc Finance explicitly state that they want a diversity of educational backgrounds. It just doesn't make too much sense to me.
I feel that the age when applying for said programs plays a huge role. It’s a lot easier to justify interest in Finance from a history student who chose the course at 17ish than a 22 year old who’s had time to explore paths and chose to study a history msc.
That does sound plausible, but I'm sure one can justify, for example, the choice to study an MSc in political economy when applying to IB. Yet, I don't see any graduate of LSE's MSc International Political Economy in the field.
U definitely still can break into IB with non-finance Msc’s. I’ve seen it happen with even certain stem msc’s and others, but I do think the biggest factor is said students individual choices. Most people who are seriously targeting investment banking post masters are looking for top msc finance options.
yup its this. A friend doing a Masters in engineering (following another engineering degree at another uni) had to do an extra in person interview where they basically shook down on this point.
Interested in this as well. I am considering doing statistics theory master since I enjoy the proof based math. But I do not see myself being a quant (lack the mental horsepower) or academics (too slow). Is it still possible to break into RX when pursuing a msc in a math related topic?
I'm currently doing an MSc in a business/econs related field at a top target. If you aim for BB/EB/top MM, my advice would be to make sure to have 1-2 good finance/IBD/PE/VC internships on your CV and be able to explain why you chose that programme, because some people may assume that you chose it because you didn't get into an MSc in Finance.
can I PM you? Gong through something similar and will love to ask you a few questions.
I’d say the perception of doing a masters is that it’s much more career-driven than your bachelors. If you’re doing a masters, it’s generally because you want to direct your career in that direction.
With that in mind, doing an MSc in Engineering for instance doesn’t discount you from doing IB because you’re not capable. As others have said, it raises the question “why has this guy specialised in a non-financial subject at a master level, if he wants to do finance?” It suggests you’re not sure of what you want to do.
Interesting, but I can honestly think of a few ways to explicitly justify choosing a politics or math degree, for example, as preparation for a finance career.
I’m sure you can think of ways, but you’re going to have a hard time convincing others.
Math degree yes.....politics not so much. On paper, the intersection of politics and finance seems very relevant. However, I've found that most poli-sci students don't actually know shit about the world or how it works. The major is basically a collection of opinions and typically opinons slanted toward one side of the political spectrum.
If you want to find the true intersection of politics and understanding how policies work or don't work, that major is called economics.
I did a Management MSc at the LSE.
Have to say, the majority of people who got into IBD from a management Master's had some kind of relevant IBD experience before starting. As far as I know, some of the MSc Finance students now working in IBD didn't necessarily have IBD experience before starting.
People studying other subjects outside of Management & Finance are probably doing it for specific career interests (marketing) or for academic interest (economics). I'd also add the the management master's is like a pre-exeperience MBA, so it kind of makes sense that banks target MiM or MSc Finance students.
Thanks for the reply, good to know. Out of curiosity, where would you say graduates of the program you attended usually end up?
Most went into some form of consulting in London, or Europe.
Only a few went to IBD or PE.
What about people that did finance in undergrad? You have all the necessary tools to do well in IB, but did not want to get further in the feeds (quant finance, security analysis, etc which most MS in Finance programs entail), would this justify more interesting programs like management/econ/politics to round the individual overall? At least hypothetically.
It actually seems to me like you'd be way better off with a finance postgrad if your undergrad wasn't from a target
You are essentially asking "why are most of the people in finance recruited at a Master's level ones that have the qualifications most directly relevant to the job?"
The whole "diversity of educational backgrounds" thing is partly marketing and it also a way for people to not give up on applying simply because they didn't do an Msc in Finance. But as others have mentioned, with close to 3 years of school under your belt, you should start to think about what you wand to do professionally. An Msc in Finance is a clear signal you are interested in banking. Another degree is... not.
The fact you think a politics or maths Msc makes you more interesting or well-rounded is of no interest to the person in HR looking at hundreds upon hundreds of CVs. An individual trader or PM might find that interesting but you have to get in front of them first. For a regular IBD job, why bother?
Reason is most MSc students study a field relevant to their career. If you don’t want to work in politics, why do a masters in politics ? If you don’t like finance, why do one in finance? Therefore it’s 1) Selection and 2) employers who want students who are sure about career path, especially at 22-25.
Moreover, MSc finance students will have better technicals, more finance experience from off cycle and summer internships, in short better candidates.
think about it, would you rather hire a BS+MS history from cambridge with no work exp, or a BS + MS finance from LSE that interned at Morgan Stanley and Blackstone ? Choice is quite clear (although both could get interviews)
What about the BS+MS history from cambridge with the same internships as the other guy?
BS + MS Cambridge history vs LSE BSc who interned at MS and BX, this comparison is too extreme
Seen plenty of Oxbridge humanities students get internships at top firms, not a determining factor
I think the part where you went wrong is where you assumed everyone in a masters program at LSE wants to work in IB.
I mentioned selection bias in my list of explanations. I just think it’s unlikely that it’s the only explanation - there is just far too little representation with respect to non finance masters.
Can't disagree with you there. I have barely scratched having a career but I gotta say I am pretty sure everyone I have worked with a masters had it in in finance or financial engineering.
Because gender studies is a BS degree and I am not using BS as Bachelor of Science here... So no one in IB will take you seriously even if you come from LSE. You either do finance or some form of communist degree at LSE to go fuck with the world with your social science knowledge. The LSE has a history of being a bastion of communist propaganda, some of that stigma and history is still visible.
The other point is that, just because you are doing an MSc in Finance from LSE you will get an IB job. Most people who do an MSc in Finance ALREADY had an internship in a BB prior to. It's a lot easier to get a FT job if you already had a prior internship. LSE's master is one year, so does not allow you to do an internship - rendering it extremely hard to get a FT job without prior internship. Finally, if you are studying basket weaving, why the fuck are you looking to go into IB?
Undergraduate is a whole different ball game - I hire you in IB because you went to LSE - you went through a rigorous process to do your undergrad there and I will teach you the rope - oh, and you also had two BB internship before your FT - see a pattern here?!
Honestly unsure about whether or not this is satire. A "communist" (lol) degree at an undergraduate level gets you interviews at BBs in London, so no this isn't quite the issue here. And MSc Finance grads from LSE with no IB experience land IB SA positions without much trouble, so again, that's not it.
And MSc Gender studies =/= MSc International Political Economy, MSc Economics, MSc Management, etc.
Just like Berkeley was associated with communism and of the more left leaning propensity. I hope you weren't at LSE, as anyone there should know that, and if you are then I despair for your generation. There were always the more left leaning degrees at LSE and the finance leaning degrees.
Getting a FT BB job without a prior internship is extremely hard to do, but not unheard of. Period. Stop. End of. Unless a piss strong bull market where we need plenty of bodies, you need relevant work experience. And no - RBC doesn't count as a BB.
International management - stick to consulting. Economics is super strong at LSE and is the same as Finance degrees in my book - if not better - to get into banking from LSE. Again I know only a tiny amount of examples of people who did not have a relevant finance internships that came straight from an MSc at LSE, for that matter I can count them on one hand.
Pretty sure there are internships in 1 year programs as well , atleast that's what LinkedIn shows
I honestly think it is because they have a lott of applications so someone doing an MSc in Finance from a target school naturally is known to the banks. Whereas someone doing an MSc in Maths, whilst much harder, just isnt known to the banks and they will question your motivation to go into finance given that you did not go for a FInance MSc.
I'm actually thinking the exact same thing - it acts essentially as a filtering mechanism, given the sheer number of applicants.
exactly
Hey Guys,
First post (Wow), guess I could add something to this discussion as I am a EU student currently applying for a target MSc in Finance.
In Continental Europe, predominantly target (there are not that many) undergrad students are able to get BB/EB internships during their undergraduate studies(bachelor’s), especially for the gigs in London. Most of the semi target / non target students who are aiming to start working in IB at a BB/EB are therefore doing a Gap-Year (especially in Germany) to get some more practical experiences and than do a target (in the best case) MSc in Finance to simply boost their chances.
Recruiters love this combination of many internships, e.g 7 in my case, and of a solid academical background. Moreover, as often more than 60% of the whole class of these Master programs want to work in IB, it is no wonder that many of them end up in the mentioned positions.
Personally, I do not really believe in the whole diversity education blablabla. At least in Germany, IB is dominated by business degrees. In England it might be a little bit different, as many Oxbridge students with BS degrees are able to land spots....
No, recruiters do not love 7 internships (they help, though). It is just common in Germany to do this many, and so they are kind of expected from German applicants. The same is not true for other nationalities. And a business degree is by no means a requisite to get an interview in London. However, if you studied both your BSc and your MSc in something completely unrelated, I'm going to question your real interest in finance - to answer the original question. That's it. Everything is learnt on the job anyways.
I do agree this does not hold on the continent, where business/finance studies are expected.
Getting accepted into LSE for a BA degree is actually difficult. The MA degree has no signalling value as you can effectively buy your way in if you are half smart.
That's a good point actually, but I would say that this isn't quite true for a few of their post-grad programs so I wouldn't think that this could explain away all the variance.
This isn't really true. LSE is the only target uni where it's probably harder to get in at the MSc level than at the UG level generally - that isn't the case for Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, UCL, or Warwick in general (obviously some specific courses being exceptions).
Might be a slight exaggeration to say that MSc level admissions is harder that undergrad, no?
The simple answer is that when you do MSc you know exactly what you want to do. People that do MSc Finance will apply banking while people studying MSc History will not apply banking.
So by that reasoning, if people doing an MSc in history apply for IB, would they still get a similar chance?..
So by that reasoning, if people doing an MSc in history apply for IB, would they still get a similar chance?..
This is a stupid question, why would you pay £30k + COL for a year to study a MSc in history if you’re interested in banking?
Either you want to work in banking, and you should study Econ/Finance/Management to improve relevant skillset, or you’re not, and the question doesn’t apply.
At some point you need to choose what you want to do, and to me paying £30-50k all included to learn about history (or any other non finance relevant subject) isn’t worth it, unless you come from the worst school in the country and this is your only chance of landing interviews.
The only exception would be Maths, quantitative or computer science related subjects, which would leave a nice optionality in the future and would still allow you to land interviews imo (playing the “smart card”) - but still if you’re set on banking I would just go for MSc finance
Btw to answer directly, a MSc History from Oxbridge would have better chances than say a MSc finance from the universify of Peterborough, but MSc history would only have a very limited shot (to say the least) vs MSc finance LSE
I'm non-diversity, got a politics master's from Oxbridge/LSE, and still got into a T1 BB in London. Meanwhile, scores of LBS/LSE finance grads are failing.
In my case, studying politics gave me a new way of thinking about things, which I greatly appreciate. So diverse education of course is something that I'm taking into account when making hiring decision after interviews.
A new way of thinking about things? Lol. You’re basically a processor in your first 2 yrs.
You got in because you had Oxbridge on your CV. That’s it, Finance is still way better.
Guess what, there are still people, like me, out there that value non-finance knowledge and education like history or politics and thus study for the pleasure of it. If I get a good brand name on top, that's what I call a pretty sweet deal
Ducimus iure vel reiciendis nulla aut consequuntur reiciendis. Qui voluptatem autem qui neque quo eum numquam. Architecto omnis veritatis porro. Dignissimos nulla quisquam molestias magnam. Deleniti voluptatibus ut quidem itaque sint. Quia tempore dolorum eaque velit accusantium repellat inventore. Quidem repudiandae non libero dicta a.
Dolores esse impedit expedita odit aperiam rerum voluptate. Accusamus quibusdam asperiores tempora est quis facere.
Error maxime aut similique sed harum. Et quia ut ea corporis impedit. Doloremque enim et minus.
Incidunt minus suscipit et fugiat numquam et dolores. Maxime perspiciatis non blanditiis.
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...
Hic recusandae dignissimos error eum ducimus dignissimos. Consequuntur est voluptates aut facilis consequatur.
Sed similique totam atque quia eveniet. Reiciendis cumque autem tempora enim. Blanditiis tenetur officia tempora mollitia nisi. Est voluptas officia consectetur beatae.
Veniam rerum quam sed praesentium. Illo aut minima distinctio voluptas deserunt est. Mollitia beatae similique temporibus et. Voluptas consequatur at error sint amet quis et omnis.