Warwick vs. UCL for LND Quant Finance + any insight on recruiting.
Hello,
I was offered a place for MORSE at Warwick and Math and Econ at UCL. Which of those two may set me up better for quantitative finance recruitment?
Additionally, I would appreciate any insight on how recruitment for quantitative positions generally takes place? Is structured like IB Spring weeks --> Summer Interhsip --> FT Position? Would I also need a master's even though my background would be strongly quantitative?
Thanks
Warwick is often pooled with Oxbridge and Imperial for maths & quant subjects (COWI), and dors well for quant recruiting. UCL is not quite up there for quant subjects.
Is it realistic to aim for entry-level quantitive positions without a master's even though I would attend one of COWI?
If you are really good it’s possible but mostly after a 4 year integrated masters. If not you can always go down th phd route if things don’t work out as planned
Personally, I think you'd be better off studying MORSE at Warwick that Maths & Econ at UCL. I think Warwick has a better reputation for quantitative subjects and I know it's invested a lot of money into its business school (both in terms of facilities and in trying to boost its image / prestige). What's more, MORSE is a one-off course specific to Warwick. If you were to study Maths & Econ at UCL, my first question at interview (to ruffle your feathers) would be to ask you why you didn't get good enough grades to do Maths & Econ at LSE.
In terms of how recruitment out of undergrad is structures for quants, you'll find a lot of the larger / better known shops (e.g. Optiver, Jane Street) have a similar process to the IBs as you've outlined above: spring week >> summer internship >> FT grad role. That said, if you're truly serious about becoming a fully fledged quant as a career, I'd strongly recommend you also consider the possibility of doing a master's and maybe even a PhD. I know very few "pure" quants that don't at least have a master's degree in maths and / or stats.
Waiting on Imperial atm. If I got rejected, do you suggest firming Warwick or taking a gap year? Is there a considerable difference between Imperial/Oxbridge and Warwick in terms of recruitment?
I would firm Warwick if you get rejected from Imperial. I don't think it's worth taking the extra year out to risk not getting the Imperial offer again. And yes, of course there is a difference between Oxbridge and Warwick, as Oxbridge are the top unis in the country, but Warwick is very very close behind so the differences in recruitment are negligible (take a look at Linkedin to see the amount of Warwick alumni in finance). The support and opportunities you can get from Warwick will be large.
What course have you applied at Imperial? Maths+Stats for finance?
I would 100% go for MORSE @ Warwick over the UCL course. MORSE will give you a mixture of teaching from different departments (Maths, Stats, Econ, Business School departments, all leading departments at the uni), and as someone said above, MORSE is a unique course only offered at about 5 universities in the UK (of which Warwick is the best one). Warwick is known for its strengths in mathematics and statistics (close behind Oxbridge + Imperial).
In addition to this, if you are heading towards quant recruitment, there are a lot of Warwick alumni who have studied MORSE/Mathematics and have headed into prop firms, so it the opportunities to get in touch with them would be much higher than at UCL, which is not the first uni you'd think of when you think of quantitative degrees.
The MORSE course at Warwick is extremely prestigious and the ones I know who went there all ended up with amazing job offers
Good advice here. UCL is still a target but is a bit meh for more quantitative subjects (firmly behind Oxbridge and Imperial). Warwick is seriously good on the quant side; it's arguably the most underrated of the top unis among the general public, but you'll get noticed when applying in finance. Also, as others have said, you've got good justification with MORSE for why Warwick rather than LSE/Imperial/Oxford/Cambridge; that will be harder for Maths & Econ at UCL.
And I wouldn't take a gap year. The difference between Warwick and Imperial/Oxbridge is very minor in terms of recruitment, especially as you know you're interested in quant rather than general finance. Teaching will be pretty similar level too - the big disadvantages I'd say would be the absence of the tutorial system versus Oxbridge and less undergraduate research opportunities (usually very well-funded) versus Imperial. Also if you get a first or high 2:1 you should be able to do a masters at Imperial/Oxbridge, should you want to. Take Warwick.
UCL is a more prestigious uni (was ranked 8th in the world last year, even above Imperial). I believe that choosing a uni that is more respected in general is better than picking a uni just because it offers a good niche course. Also, recruiters always prefer students from the top 5 UK universities and Warwick isn’t one of them. For the people saying that you will have to justify why you didn’t go to LSE, none is going to ask you that. Both universities are equally prestigious, especially the UCL maths department that just added another Nobel laureate to its list of alumni. What matters is how well you perform during recruitment.
To summarize, I advice you to pick UCL as it’s far more recognized and has a larger pool of people to network with (it’s the largest uni in the UK after all). It also has a really strong maths department. I might be biased because I study there but these are my 2 cents.
What?
Oh
Might be
Few people would choose UCL over LSE if they applied and received offers for both. Speaking as someone who has no affiliation with either. Obviously some people won't apply to LSE (or Imperial) because they don't want to be in universities that have minimal social lives and want a little more variety in their friends than either of those two more specialised institutions offer. But academically, LSE > UCL for most things, and you can see that in the average UCAS tariffs for the comparable subjects. The global rankings are very favourable to UCL (size), and to a lesser extent, favourable to Imperial (STEM-bias on citations). LSE gets shafted by them.
And yes, UCL is more prestigious than Warwick outside of STEM and outside of the UK. But for quantitative finance, Warwick makes sense, especially the MORSE course.
Being high on the rankings does not imply better recruitment. If you did some data crunching, you'd find that UCL & Warwick send equivalent numbers to BB IB despite WW's smaller size.
Even if you go by the rankings, Warwick is consistently ranked higher than UCL in Math, Statistics, and Operational Research.
OP would be better off with Warwick, especially since he wants quant finance.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n1vLYhVzGB_g7_eJKCebn21C8dyb7x5r/view
pretty similar (difference of only 9 ish)
I had offers for both many moons ago, and I backup'd UCL, purely because of the ad-hoc networking opportunities, proximity to firms etc. Despite the "one hour train journey from Coventry to London", if you want to make a 9am start in Canary Wharf, you sort of have to leave your house before 6am.
Was it worth London living expenses tho
Ut suscipit consequatur voluptatem atque autem. Officia nam ut occaecati beatae itaque laborum laborum. Labore numquam qui fuga et autem est.
Dolor officia facilis aliquid et aliquid quia. Qui consequatur sunt magnam illo nobis veritatis officia. Illum velit accusamus consequatur sunt minus tenetur sint.
Aut eos explicabo quo. Vero voluptatem et et reprehenderit. Fuga aperiam aut cumque voluptate architecto non.
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...