3 ms·

>You absolutely don't need a PhD to learn those things. True. You can learn anything without a PhD. A PhD requirement reduces the cost to hire qualified people

>You absolutely don't need a PhD to learn those things. True. You can learn anything without a PhD. A PhD requirement reduces the cost to hire qualified people. Instead of having to pay to interview 1000 people to get 5 you can interview 20. Companies recruit PhDs because they have amassed many techniques, and have modelling skills on average that are better than non-PhDs. There's also quite a difference between seeing these topics in class, having been exposed to them, and being able to wield them at a fundamental level. This difference is also increased by having the rigor of a PhD program teach far more skills than a masters or undergrad teaches. A good example is the Fourier transform. Many people have seen it and have a rough idea what it is. Very few of them truly understand it at a basic level and all it can do, it's generalizations, etc. >covered in my Masters degree. Bingo. The claim I was refuting above was that these things are rarely taught to undergrads.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Wow that's so absolutely contradicted by my experience, I'm almost speechless. Having a degree does diddly-squat to the requirement to interview. It can even (famously) be counter-productive. The only good indicator of what somebody knows, is to ask them to demonstrate facility.
- ChrisLomont 8y ago
  >The only good indicator of what somebody knows, is to ask them to demonstrate facility. That's true. But not making the pool as concentrated as possible before asking them is a waste of limited resources. Candidates cost money. When resources are limited, such as money to fly candidates out, time spent screening instead of building, time for senior people to work on interviews instead of getting billable work done, time to get a project done, then it is very valuable to winnow the search to places where there is a higher chance of finding a candidate. So, one doesn't interview people randomly sampled from the entire populace for a reason. Sure you will get the best candidate, eventually, but the cost to do so is silly. Finding predictors that make your search smaller is extremely valuable. Thus many jobs have educational requirements. Having hired probably 100ish people in my career, (as well as many friends of mine who have hired similarly), I can without a doubt tell you that demonstrated academic aptitude is a good predictor of overall candidate quality for these types of jobs. >Having a degree does diddly-squat to the requirement to interview. So you would claim for jobs using advanced math there is zero difference in mean skill among those with only a 6th grade education and those with a PhD?
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Pointless strawman. I'd take evidence of working successfully with math, regardless of degree. Choose your pool that way, instead of lazily reading only the first two lines of the resume.
    - ChrisLomont 8y ago
      >Pointless strawman. How so? Do you think for some jobs without requiring a PhD they'd find the candidate they want without having to interview more people? >I'd take evidence of working successfully with math, regardless of degree. A PhD in math, especially from a good school, most certainly gives evidence of working successfully with math. It's easier to fake resume experience than to get a PhD, something that I've found quite common when interviewing people. And it's trivial to check someone actually got PhD - I've yet to find a candidate lie about that part. I've probably interviewed a ~100 people over the years. I've found from experience that anything to reduce the pool quickly saves time and money, and I've still ended up with excellent candidates. Before learning how to weed quickly, I spent far more time and money on people that had very little ability to solve the problems we wanted solved. Done much hiring?
dagw 8y ago
Companies recruit PhDs because they have amassed many techniques... While everything you say is no doubt true, I've got a a lot of friends who have had no problem getting quant jobs in most major finance centers in Europe despite only having Masters degrees

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Wow that's so absolutely contradicted by my experience, I'm almost speechless. Having a degree does diddly-squat to the requirement to interview. It can even (famously) be counter-productive. The only good indicator of what somebody knows, is to ask them to demonstrate facility.

ChrisLomont 8y ago
>The only good indicator of what somebody knows, is to ask them to demonstrate facility. That's true. But not making the pool as concentrated as possible before asking them is a waste of limited resources. Candidates cost money. When resources are limited, such as money to fly candidates out, time spent screening instead of building, time for senior people to work on interviews instead of getting billable work done, time to get a project done, then it is very valuable to winnow the search to places where there is a higher chance of finding a candidate. So, one doesn't interview people randomly sampled from the entire populace for a reason. Sure you will get the best candidate, eventually, but the cost to do so is silly. Finding predictors that make your search smaller is extremely valuable. Thus many jobs have educational requirements. Having hired probably 100ish people in my career, (as well as many friends of mine who have hired similarly), I can without a doubt tell you that demonstrated academic aptitude is a good predictor of overall candidate quality for these types of jobs. >Having a degree does diddly-squat to the requirement to interview. So you would claim for jobs using advanced math there is zero difference in mean skill among those with only a 6th grade education and those with a PhD?
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Pointless strawman. I'd take evidence of working successfully with math, regardless of degree. Choose your pool that way, instead of lazily reading only the first two lines of the resume.
  - ChrisLomont 8y ago
    >Pointless strawman. How so? Do you think for some jobs without requiring a PhD they'd find the candidate they want without having to interview more people? >I'd take evidence of working successfully with math, regardless of degree. A PhD in math, especially from a good school, most certainly gives evidence of working successfully with math. It's easier to fake resume experience than to get a PhD, something that I've found quite common when interviewing people. And it's trivial to check someone actually got PhD - I've yet to find a candidate lie about that part. I've probably interviewed a ~100 people over the years. I've found from experience that anything to reduce the pool quickly saves time and money, and I've still ended up with excellent candidates. Before learning how to weed quickly, I spent far more time and money on people that had very little ability to solve the problems we wanted solved. Done much hiring?

dagw 8y ago

Companies recruit PhDs because they have amassed many techniques... While everything you say is no doubt true, I've got a a lot of friends who have had no problem getting quant jobs in most major finance centers in Europe despite only having Masters degrees