False. There are many jobs available for PhD's.
FYI, insurance companies have actuarial departments to do pricing and reserving. Hell, a PhD might harm your chances of getting an interview with the majority of insurance companies. You'll be seen as overqualified or won't fit into the culture of the organization.
There are many people in high ranked programs who have been used to always doing really well in school and being told that they're the best. Some of these dudes start to lose it when their research projects start failing and they come to the stark realisation that maybe just maybe they're not gifted after all. It's not pretty to watch these guys go down in flames.
I'm in a HRM economics program and I'm doing great. I love research and the rigor that comes with doing a PhD, but, in light of the fact that I do not wish to continue to academia, perhaps Economics is not the PhD I should be doing. THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD.
^ then you have no reason to do a PhD in Economics. If you want intellectual fulfilment while having no interest in an academic career, then I would suggest that you NOT do an Econ PhD .
I'm in a HRM economics program and I'm doing great. I love research and the rigor that comes with doing a PhD, but, in light of the fact that I do not wish to continue to academia, perhaps Economics is not the PhD I should be doing. THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD.
Doesn't really matter what you get your PhD in, just make sure you learn stuff like C++ and Python. The econ PhD is surprisingly worthless in the real world--really more a signal of intelligence than anything else.
What about finance, stats, and metrics? also just a signal or is there a bit more practicality?
I'm in a HRM economics program and I'm doing great. I love research and the rigor that comes with doing a PhD, but, in light of the fact that I do not wish to continue to academia, perhaps Economics is not the PhD I should be doing. THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD.
Doesn't really matter what you get your PhD in, just make sure you learn stuff like C++ and Python. The econ PhD is surprisingly worthless in the real world--really more a signal of intelligence than anything else.
I headed a quant team at at an investment bank. One of the key problems with econ PhDs, of which I am one, is that they lacked critical computer programming skills. It was easier to take a programming expert with strong math and teach them the finance than to take a econ/finance PhD and teach them the programming. The reason is that despite all the glitz and glamor, at the end of the day, most of the problems in the quant world involve plumbing and getting the data around the system. The engine or model itself is important but is only 10% of the total problem. Some think you can have a theorist weak in programming work with a plumber who can get all the data in the right place. Unfortunately, I've rarely seen that work in practice. If you really want to be a good quant, study both the programming and the math/finance. Exactly what degree you get is less important.
^ I agree with you except for the last part. There is no point in wasting time with econ when you could be doing something else that's heavier on the math and programming side ... and potentially a lot more interesting.
Noone has ever described sell-side quant work as 'interesting'
^ I agree with you except for the last part. There is no point in wasting time with econ when you could be doing something else that's heavier on the math and programming side ... and potentially a lot more interesting.
Noone has ever described sell-side quant work as 'interesting'
I'm talking about the PhD.
The sad part is that learning the plumbing does not require a high iq but economists:
1) never learn it at school
2) are not trained in it once they get a job
I headed a quant team at at an investment bank. One of the key problems with econ PhDs, of which I am one, is that they lacked critical computer programming skills. It was easier to take a programming expert with strong math and teach them the finance than to take a econ/finance PhD and teach them the programming. The reason is that despite all the glitz and glamor, at the end of the day, most of the problems in the quant world involve plumbing and getting the data around the system. The engine or model itself is important but is only 10% of the total problem. Some think you can have a theorist weak in programming work with a plumber who can get all the data in the right place. Unfortunately, I've rarely seen that work in practice. If you really want to be a good quant, study both the programming and the math/finance. Exactly what degree you get is less important.
I headed a quant team at at an investment bank. One of the key problems with econ PhDs, of which I am one, is that they lacked critical computer programming skills. It was easier to take a programming expert with strong math and teach them the finance than to take a econ/finance PhD and teach them the programming. The reason is that despite all the glitz and glamor, at the end of the day, most of the problems in the quant world involve plumbing and getting the data around the system. The engine or model itself is important but is only 10% of the total problem. Some think you can have a theorist weak in programming work with a plumber who can get all the data in the right place. Unfortunately, I've rarely seen that work in practice. If you really want to be a good quant, study both the programming and the math/finance. Exactly what degree you get is less important.
this is such a good post.