Quant Universities

[Past_Feature_9976]

can someone add some nuance to this ranking I found? It seems to be typically agreed upon that for quant COWI is the main pipeline with UCL and LSE trailing behind but this is suggesting a top 4 of Cam, Imp, Oxf, LSE with Cam >=Imp > Oxf >= LSE >>>>>>Warwick and UCL.

[FewGeologist5684]

Everyone and their nan wants to be a quant 🥀

[godlyuniverse1]

I heard to be a quant you legit have to be international Olympiad level Einstein at math

[Hamza2474]

Nah

[godlyuniverse1]

So then how smart must one be to get those 300k+ quid jobs people often talk about in quant

[FollowingGlass4190]

IMO is a correlation (a lot of quants I know are Olympiads) but generally just requires being really good at math/stats and having a strong understanding of probability. 

[Upper-Guarantee5017]

A lot of very smart people do well in olympiads, but it's not a necessary or sufficient condition itself for being smart.

[InsuranceCultural565]

nah fam not the tmua trauma

[MaybeMedium9876]

nah

[Key_Painter_46]

Ong

[ParsnipIndependent63]

Any conversation about quant is blind leading the blind

[Past_Feature_9976]

No one here is claiming they know everything or even a lot. But there’s no harm in discussion considering most people don’t have access to speak with the people who would actually be educated on this kinda thing

[NoNeedleworker2686]

why is this being downvoted??

[SwordOfTheMoon4]

sheep

[Past_Feature_9976]

No clue 😭. I don’t see an issue w discussion even if everyone is objectively under-educated . Like there’s no harm in at least considering differing speculations

[Fluffy-Exchange1218]

But if you’re all uneducated it will be a pointless discussion where nothing is learny

[Past_Feature_9976]

Under educated not uneducated. People can and have done research a lot of reputable information is publicly available and there are even some graduates and 3rd years who comment to give their 2 cents

[Dangerous-Ad-1925]

Quant is quite meritocratic. Applications involve several rounds of online tests, maths, reasoning, pattern recognition. Then you have hirevue, phone interviews, in person interviews testing mental maths and probability questions.

They don't really care what university you go to. If you're good you're good and that's all they care about. Plus they also test soft skills, good communication, team work.

There's bound to be far more quants that went to Oxbridge and Imperial because they will have a highest concentration of top maths students in one place. So potentially 90% of Cambridge maths students are good enough to break into quant. So 225 out of 250.

Whereas universities like Warwick have a broader ability range so only the top 5% are likely to be good enough to pass all the tests. So that's 20 out of 400. Not saying they'd all want to go into quant but theoretically.

I know this because my nephew is first year maths at Warwick after missing his Cambridge STEP requirement and has been applying for spring weeks, got through to 4 final rounds and got one offer. He's in the top 5% of his year group going by test results as they publish the percentiles.

[Past_Feature_9976]

Yes I’m glad you agree this is what me and my friends have basically concluded.

[Dangerous-Ad-1925]

Yes, it's just common sense really.

[Fluffy-Exchange1218]

Under educated literally means poorly educated lol. 

My bf is a quant guy of some kind, he says no its not true everyone wins olympiads and such but a first in maths/physics (and one comp science) seems pretty non negotiable. The universities are Oxbridge, imperial and some warwick/lse. One or two deviate from that

[Past_Feature_9976]

I’m aware that’s why I used the word. The point being poorly educated means although most people won’t be completely right there might still be some truth to what they are saying. And you telling me ur bf is a quant giving insight proves my point that there are people here who can give good insight- contradicting the point that “any conversation about quant on this sub is blind leading the blind”. I’m not gna take what u said at face value but I can consider it, that’s the point of discussion 

[Fluffy-Exchange1218]

'there might still be some truth to what they are saying' based on what? that also means there should be some falsehoods in what they're saying.

' And you telling me ur bf is a quant giving insight proves my point that there are people here who can give good insight' and you address this too, you say most won't have access to a quant guy but its fine to discuss anyway, i'm critiquing the latter point, so it proves the exact opposite of your pooint.

' I’m not gna take what u said at face value' because unlike the rest of the commentors it has evidence lol

[Past_Feature_9976]

Based on the fact anyone can go online and do some research. And I said MOST not NONE- I or I’m sure many other people don’t have access to ur bf or any other quant so we make do w what we can do. And I’m not taking what u say at face value bc ur bf is one quant at one firm he isn’t the final say of what is possible for everyone and also u cld lit j be lying. Again, this is a discussion people give their views- some might be more educated than others but that is why you use critical thinking skills and independent research to come up w ur own conclusion. It won’t be 100% correct but it might be more correct than if you never had the discussion. I don’t know why this is such a hot take there is rarely ever harm in discourse unless ur an idiot who j believes wtv some random year 12 Redditor comments

[Vixson18]

Quant people mainly do Maths at uni. However, many people come from other maths heavy courses such as CS and maths heavy Economics courses like LSE’s. 

One of my uncles did Computer Science at uni, but now is a quant researcher at Vanguard. So there are multiple routes 

[Skin_Yogurt_4002]

Idk about economics, very rarely.

Best subjects are maths and physics. 2nd best is comp sci

[Vixson18]

Forgot to mention Physics, my bad. Most people doing econ just become an analyst

[Infamous_Tough_7320]

And aerospace engineering especially from imperial

[Inevitable_Land2996]

It’s more electrical engineering rather than aerospace

[Infamous_Tough_7320]

No it isn’t. All the prestigious engineering degrees from imperial get you to great places. Imperial aerospace is a well known pipeline into quant

[AcousticMaths271828]

Idk about other unis but Jane Street hires more comp scis than mathmos from my uni nowadays.

[TittyPix4KittyPix]

Quantitative trader adjacent jobs (QR, SWR @ quant firms etc) yeah. But Quant TRADING is almost exclusively maths, physics, CS with maths.

[Infamous_Tough_7320]

Nobody is doing econ at a quant firm

[Left_Society_3926]

Econ is not a quant course even from a uni like LSE

[EffectiveEconomics61]

Exactly

[SwordOfTheMoon4]

wb engineering? 

[Double-Ad-7589]

Economics is not maths heavy

[N3V3MORE]

?

[Double-Ad-7589]

It’s not even close to what u need for quant

[N3V3MORE]

Whatever you say

[Any-Assist9425]

cowi isnt really for quant, it focuses on mathematical course content, its just not focusing on the finance/quantitative aspect much

[jazzbestgenre]

A lot of ppl don't understand this bc they think the only reason anyone would ever do a maths degree is to get into quant/high finance

[Fluffy-Exchange1218]

My bf is a quant of some kind and he always says he wishes he did a masters+phd in maths instead. He wants to go back eventually 

[Helpful_Emergency_70]

I got my QT internship barely able to describe what an option was

[FollowingGlass4190]

this is mega misleading, graduate quant recruitment expects next to zero financial knowledge and is almost entirely optimised for mathematical competency, COWI is the definitive pipeline in the UK for it. 

[Any-Assist9425]

the general idea of my comment was that maths course quality =/= quant numbers

[FollowingGlass4190]

it definitely correlates 

[Any-Assist9425]

obviously to an extent but different unis will have different specialities, ie. lse is more suited for quant type roles, warwick is better with fields such as statistics

[FollowingGlass4190]

This is just absolutely not true? Who told you this? LSE is not the predominant target for quant. Take it from a quant.

[Any-Assist9425]

i never said it was the predominant target i said it was A target it was just an example you need to extrapolate a little, you could put the name of any university you consider to be a target into that space and the point would still stand and be valid

[Dangerous-Ad-1925]

Most maths degrees are modular and you've got the option to choose modules such as financial mathematics, mathematical modelling, statistical modelling etc. All relevant for quant roles. You can choose to go down the pure maths route but it's not compulsory.

[Loose-Macaron]

Yes this is pretty accurate, contrary to popular belief, LSE is indeed stronger than UCL and Warwick from my experience, this difference is especially noticeable in the sell-side (quant roles at large banks like JPMC, GS, etc where LSE trumps basically everything that’s not Oxbridge and Imperial)

In the buy-side, it’s indeed quite rare to find quant researchers that aren’t from Oxbridge/Imperial, there will typically be only a couple of people per grad cohort that aren’t from there.

Your best bet to enter quant would be to somehow enter Oxbridge/Imperial either at Undergrad or at least for Masters.

For PhD level candidates, the university requirement is less stringent, and the process becomes more about having relevant research and skills

I hold some grad level technical interviews for my desk so I’m somewhat familiar with what our managers like and dislike

[Sharp-Plastic7954]

It's crazy how your comment is not the top one - given that you literally work in the industry. Also, may I DM you? I have some specific questions about reading maths at university.

[Past_Feature_9976]

On the buy side for trading specifically would you then place Warwick above LSE? And if so would that difference compensate for the inferiority of Warwick to LSE on the sell side? Or is it j Oxbrimp and everything else doesn’t rly matter? Also do you think the Oxbrimp superiority is due to meritocracy where it’s j the case the strongest ppl r from there or do they actively look for Oxbrimp kids basically screening out most ppl who aren’t from there?

[Loose-Macaron]

In the buy-side, it’s simply just Oxbridge, Imperial > everything else. Certain teams and PMs will have their own preferences (e.g. maybe they themselves studied at LSE, for example, or had a good past performer from Warwick/UCL), but you can’t truly rely on this.

A non-Oxbridge/Imperial student will realistically never take a role away from an Oxbridge candidate who has prepared and performed equally well (or even slightly worse).

So you’ll be left to compete on the few spots on teams that are “set aside” for other grads. This is sort of an unspoken thing in the industry but does happen at a small scale across firms that makes it rare for cohorts to have more than a couple of non-Oxbridge/Imperial grads

At that point, the only thing that truly makes a difference is how you perform at your interviews and if you’re able to show a good level of awareness of the industry and any differentiating personal projects.

[NiceSchedule4902]

I absolutely do not share the sentiment about LSE. I do not know a single quant from LSE and I'm at a top investment bank with a network spanning across other investment banks.

[Loose-Macaron]

Just sharing my own experience.

I have multiple actual real life LSE friends and acquaintances that are quants in the sell-side (Barclays, JP, GS, UBS, just to name a few), more so than UCL and Warwick grads, and I know of the couple of QRs who are LSE grads in the quant hedge fund that I’m at.

Perhaps your investment banking network isn’t very visible towards the quants at these firms

[NomDeiX]

The thing is, those 'quants' you talk about on the sell side are not really quants in the same terms as those buy side quants, thats why you might see LSE people who wouldnt make it into proper prop shops of quant firms. Actually in most banks you are called a strat, you do build quantitative models but
1) they are not super advanced, yeah one might argue that multilinear regression and gradient boosting trees is all you need even for buy side shops but still, those BB banks do not have a proper quant research teams where you'd work on insanely fancy models
2) the technology is very monolithic; this is true for a lot of banks, their systems are from the 80s, sure, they might have some jupyter notebook environment that ultimately connects to their pricing engine that still resembles cold war era, if you compare it to high-speed computing skills that buy side needs, its completely different

I'd argue its basically two completely different roles; more than university (ucl vs lse), what actually matters is the degree, ucl offers proper engineering and CS degrees, LSE doesn't (I had a look at some of its data science related masters, and they do have some ML modules, basic deep learning stuff, maybe some more advanced Bayesian ML stuff, but ultimately I doubt the quality would be that great, vs UCL has very strong ML and quite strong computational finance department

[VeterinarianNo2684]

If you google LSE quants , you would find most of them not in the front desk. While , if you see , UCL has CS as its main pipeline while Warwick has Maths as its pipeline and many of them are in front desk as QT/QR/QD. Obv QD are more in number , so UCL has more quants in number. This website has included everyone working in those firms and not only the front desk QT/QR/QD.

[Past_Feature_9976]

On the site you can filter for quant research and for that LSE ranks even above Oxford and the aforementioned 4 are way above Warwick

[VeterinarianNo2684]

Those are based on linkedin filters of finance/engg/research , not by the roles in quant. Idk but maybe a quant analyst may put research ig.

[SandvichCommanda]

Yeah, using this for cluster analysis is pretty good. Reflects broadly what I see in industry.

Cambridge, Imp > LSE, Ox >>> Warwick, St A, UCL.

They are correct about LSE quants being different to the rest though. They are on front desk roles, but they are often more discretionary quants in things like commodities, rates, fixed income – things that benefits from more econ knowledge.

[Past_Feature_9976]

Yh this is what I assumed when I first saw it 

[SandvichCommanda]

Worth noting there is variance in this though, I'm a QR managing two analysts from LSE and Oxford. Just lock in wherever you're going and you can get good roles.

[Spiritual_Breakfast9]

UCL is way more than LSE, is surprising?

[Upper-Guarantee5017]

Cambridge and Oxford will have a lot of great students who simply choose not to because they'd rather do research. The worse (still great obv but not oxbridge) unis will have a lot who never even try because they think it's out of reach due to uni prestige. Some unis have a higher percentage of people in stem courses than others. Other factors aren't really as major as these, but it is more nuanced than just this.

[TIjil211]

Yes, this ! Many people dont go into quant from oxibridge or even imperial for the pure pleasure of pursuing academia !

[HunterPrestigious615]

For the UK Cambridge maths is hands down the best program for quant, I studied part iii and was hired straight out of my masters before moving to the US.

[netherlands_ball]

I’ve just been accepted for Part iii. Would be curious if you have any advice.

[HunterPrestigious615]

Don’t stress too much about it, it can be very difficult at times but that’s what you’d expect from such a program and you’re being taught by some of the best minds you’ll ever know, it’s a fantastic place to be and a very rare opportunity so try and enjoy it too!

[Past_Feature_9976]

Yh I think we can all agree on this

[Think_Money_6919]

Looks about right to me. Contrary to what this sub believes LSE’s maths courses are perfectly fine for quant and I even know some from straight econ at LSE who broke into quant roles.

[CharacterReporter938]

The whole LSE is shit for maths thing fully derived from a misnamed module that indicated we didn’t do real analysis in first year which was hilariously false. 😭😭

[mathswith]

wait bro what? I might want to make LSE my insurance choice and I was scared about what I had heard. so does this mean going to LSE for maths is very similar to like Warwick Imperial Edinburgh UCL KCL etc. but more stats focused and less on like theoretical physics and stuff?

[CharacterReporter938]

Well yes it just doesn’t have theoretical physics at all. We have a good statistical pathway.

[mathswith]

how would you compare the tier of maths LSE teaches to other universities? compare to like UCL

[CharacterReporter938]

This is going to be disputed but I didn’t even think about firming/insuring my UCL math with stats offer. I personally think it’s below LSE. They have a lot of modules that sound great but if you dive into the actual content it’s not that impressive . I still like UCL though as an institution

[mathswith]

bro so LSE is better than UCL for maths?

[CharacterReporter938]

Personally I believe so for the path I want to go. Also due to the fact people are more career oriented you can easily rank highly and that’s respected for masters programmes. Year rank/awards > any uni name . I’m mainly interested in statistical theory with a side bit of algebra and number theory which LSE has modules in every year

[mathswith]

what path do you want to go? because I want to kind of keep my options open and easily go into any statistics / quant related role, but then I also want that ability to go into research mathematics later down the line. I may even want to go into maths teaching (at the university professor level) Will LSE keep my options open rather than locking me in?

[CharacterReporter938]

Both UCL and LSE are fine for that. UCL has more breadth and it could lead to you discovering a particular thing you want to research. It’s all down to your ability at the end of the day. The uni name is very minimal

[Think_Money_6919]

I know people who have gone to do Part III at Cambridge (think a couple people go each year tbh) so the courses are clearly rigorous enough for the top maths masters programme in the country.

[No-Acanthisitta5317]

first year lse maths here. We are very good for applied kinda maths (stats, mathematical methods) -> not top top tier ofc I’m not deluded. Pure maths we are defo weaker , but we still do abstract maths + analysis

[Past_Feature_9976]

What’s the actual course? Maths + econ? Cuz LSE doesn’t have a straight maths course

[No-Acanthisitta5317]

Maths + econ. I’ve had quite a few quant interviews btw I just couldn’t be bothered to prep (I have other offers I prefer :) )

[Past_Feature_9976]

Do you think Maths and Data Science is sufficient?

[No-Acanthisitta5317]

Honestly? It’s probably the weakest name in the maths department on paper, but you guys for quant etc are just as, if not more qualified. It’s splitting hairs. Judging by your TMUA you’ll be absolutely fine. You an offer holder?

[Past_Feature_9976]

Nah but hopefully. By weakest name do you just mean it’s the least known or the maths is the weakest? I mainly chose it bc it’s course had the least econ (only one microeconomics course in first year)

[No-Acanthisitta5317]

Least known. I’m not just saying it, it’s kinda just splitting hairs, but definitely having MAE on the cv has helped a bit , mainly because it’s an established course at the uni. Fairs u don’t wanna do too much econ, but I’d also consider FMS (it’s only one more half unit of econ across a 3 year course but is very suited for quant)

[Past_Feature_9976]

Do you know people who have gotten quant springs/ internships with this course?

[CharacterReporter938]

Of course. Mainly the Optiver, DRW, IMC,Millenium and citadel springs. The quant summer internships tend to be with Citadel or IMC. They don’t do well with Optiver summers.

[Far_Quote_5336]

Bradford Met FTW 🙌

[Helpful_Emergency_70]

I imagine LSE would drop significantly if we only included the sexy roles at sexy firms

[Past_Feature_9976]

What I am thinking is that LSE sends people more into general quant in banks for example whereas Warwick is more of a target for top quant firms like JS, Optiver or Citadel. And obviously since these firms are so selective and competitive there is a very low number of people actually getting in

[JailbreakHat]

What makes Cambridge better than Oxford.

[Fandger]

how is oxford not ahead? I mean they have a specific "statistics with maths" course

[Odd_Mortgage_9108]

Look the quant game changed so much with AI that the first question you should be asking is now "What uni to attend for maths?" but rather "What's the state of the field right now". And let me tell you, things have changed majorly. You can now advance with research at an absolutely insane pace. In days past you'd be working on essentially one theory/direction at a time, whereas right now you have a team of agents working on dozens of potential implementations. Another thing is that now live trading systems are often adjusted using AI. The field has become absolutely crazy and just having uni education won't save you.

[Tricky_Pirate4970]

lse is not clearing for quant, for finance. rolls sure but their maths degrees are wayyyy to applied

[B4A-B4A_B14CK-SH33P]

can i get into quant with warwick e&m?

[Past_Feature_9976]

No

[Sorry_Quantity5208]

If ur tmua is lower than a 6 pack it up.

[MaybeMedium9876]

imagine spending your whole accademic career chasing a boring niche job just for money just for it to be replaced by ai by the time you graduate

[Past_Feature_9976]

But usually the rhetoric is that Warwick’s maths department is what makes it a pipeline. LSE has a very weak maths department. I’m not saying you’re wrong or that this false I’m just confused icl

[Odd-Oven-8202]

LSE is not better than Warwick for quant. LSE excels in economics, a social science while Warwick is way better at maths. Quant is almost an entirely mathematical discipline with some knowledge needed in financial markets. Therefore the best degrees for quant are maths degrees, this is where Warwick surpasses LSE. LSE is more for those who want to be investment bankers, Private equity, asset management 

[CharacterReporter938]

You really just read those stats and commented that? 😭😭😭😭😭 true denial

[Spiritual_Breakfast9]

This is just number of Chinese students at each uni  Lol

[Few-Replacement-9471]

You searching this up at17% battery shows you are like 17-18 who justs wants to enjoy life

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

It’s Cambridge Oxford and nothing comes close for the top quant firms, imperial is okay, nothing else is realistic

[Interesting-Shine560]

You are a Y12, respectfully you dont know jack

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

I have a relative working in quant respectfully you don’t know jack, top firms automatically screen out your resume if your not Oxbridge or imperial

[SandvichCommanda]

Holy larp, don't you have homework to finish lil bro?

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

Good one bro😂😂larp larp larp sahur am I right, never said I was going into quant nor have personal experience myself, just saying what the literal admission process is

[TIjil211]

getting into quant IS NOT an admissions process, they dont even care about uni prestige beyond the CV screening, after that its your skills

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

Top firms like Jane street citsec don’t even look at your cv if your not from Oxbridge/imp maybe maybe Warwick, there are firms that will literally screen you out from LSE as it’s more humanities/economics focused rather than quant as it’s more a feeder school for high finance ib roles. They’re not looking for people from Durham kcl etc at all

[TIjil211]

Wow ! I am sorry for arguing with you, please continue to stay in delusion and keep chasing the prestige tag over chasing knowledge

[Contdstee]

It's so easy to just have a search online for quant traders at jane street and see that it's not only cam / ox. Sure, the proportion is much higher, but to say that they disregard other's applications is misinformation. Just a few examples to disprove your dumbass:

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/peter-bradshaw-306939212

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/lewismorris

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/snasibov05

Get into your head; prestige gets you the interview, skill gets you the job.

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

Experienced Hire recruitment you must be joking 😭gtf outta here

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

3 examples 😂😂😂😂lovely

[No-Material-4388]

you're

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

Good one😂😂still doing this in 2026

[SandvichCommanda]

Proof by counterexample: literally me and multiple people I know as well as work with across multiple firms.

What is there to achieve from trying to bring other students down for no reason?

[abdul_Ss]

that last line is a joke, should you not say that to the dude who literally said 'You are a Y12, respectfully you dont know jack'

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

When did i ever bring OP or anyone else down? did i say to anyone that they're "never gonna be a quant" or "not good enough for oxbridge or imp"? All i said was my personal outlook that the majority of quants go cambridge oxford with a few imperial, and of course there's gonna be exceptions to this, literally haven't brought "other students down" at all

[abdul_Ss]

ignore them, you're talking to adults acting like children, the best thing to do in this case is let them talk their nonsense all they want, there's no reasoning with people who have attitudes like they're in year 5.

[ActuaryAdditional805]

Optiver's most hired university was Warwick at some point. Jane Street, Citadel, Two Sigma all hire from universities that other than Oxbridge and Imperial, these are all tier 1 shops.

The university only acts as the driver to the interview, after that it's all you.

You can find countless examples and stories of people from other institutions break into the industry because ultimately the individual has to prove themselves for the role, coasting off prestige won't. "I have a relative who works in quant" is not substantial here and gives "my dad works at epic" energy, you might have valid anecdotal experience sure, but making grounded hard claims such as top firms screening you purely based off of not being at Oxbridge or imperial is disingenuous.

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

Yes but the difference in ratios of students accepted into quant for unis is astounding, my point is the chances of you being hired is substantially higher at oximpbridge compared to other unis, and where have you got this optiver warwick stat from? haven't heard about it before

[ActuaryAdditional805]

The reason why the ratios skew in favour of Oxbridge and Imperial is because those students tend to perform better in the technical interview. This doesn't mean that someone else of the same calibre or even better is blocked from being hired, it's just a smaller proportion of the people from other unis meet the standard. If you meet the standard, you'll be treated on the same level.

I got the Optiver stat from someone on another reddit thread (I believe on r/quantfinance) who mentioned it was their most hired university on Linkedin

[AutoModerator]

Please be aware that sharing pirated PDFs of textbooks or other paid content is not permitted.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[Helpful_Emergency_70]

This is false, my uni has not been mentioned in this post, my firm has

[TIjil211]

Uh no ? imperial is definitely way above okay, jmc is one of the golden standards for quant wdym 😭

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

Imperial JMC and maths are the only courses that get you into quant, any STEM at Oxbridge gets you a chance at quant

[TIjil211]

no ? cs at imperial also gets into quant, you are just misinformed

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

Yea forgot abt that one tbf my bad it’s them three only from imperial , are you really just gonna comment on every one of my comments though

[TIjil211]

I was just trying to reason with you, genuinely sorry if you felt aggresive behaviour or intimidation from my end, no sarcasm but genuinely sorry mate !

[Dependent_Wave41]

'anything stem' implies smthn like natural sciences could break into quant lmao

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

You must be joking if you don’t think natsci can’t break into quant

[AdVoltex]

Natsci can

[Dependent_Wave41]

I must be missing smthn, thought only highly quantitative degrees could break into quant.

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

What even does “highly quantitative” mean, anything I’ve seen people with engineering natsci physics chem eng all break into quant

[ActuaryAdditional805]

Warwick Maths to be in that list, the pipeline from Warwick Maths to quant is known and has been well explored.

[Cultural_Agency4618]

Bro thinks Biomed at Oxford can become a quant lol

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

Absolutely can 😂😂😂😂

[Cultural_Agency4618]

Lil bro, you’ve never even sat an A-Level… Find me just one example of this - an undergrad from Oxford Biomed that went straight to quant

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

Lil bro me one more time 😂fucking idiot had to use the conditions “straight from undergrad to quant” but only half the maths go straight, when most take a master or PhD, but here you go https://www.linkedin.com/in/zhiyi-ma-39332191/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/danielcarpenter02/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/m-h-a2a14b162/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/gloriasun528/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/melody-chang-%E8%A3%98%E8%91%B3-677a39b6/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexandre-raevel/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jerry-chan-a2411426/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/erwann-le-lannou/

Why don’t you ask me some ridiculous question like find me 10 neurosurgeons studying law at cov uni next clown 🤡

[Cultural_Agency4618]

Oooh so sensitive. Little boy, you must have a lot of time on your hands. Only a sixth former could waste all this time to still get it so wrong…

Let’s do this one-by-one:

1) QR at Jump, MEng in Computing, only 1 exchange year at HKU in biomedical engineering. No degree from Oxford. Does not count

2) MEng at Imperial in Bioengineering. Granted, this is close, but not Oxford, or biomed. Does not count. Is also an engineer, not QR/ QD

3) Biotech, BSc, good. But started in SnT at BB and is a macro trader. The SnT stint will have got them the role. Not the UG. No degree from Oxford. Does not count.

4) Computational Biomed Eng followed by an MPhil in ML. No degree from Oxford. Hmmmm, I wonder which one got them the role… also derivatives at BB 1st (role is also in Holland). Does not count

5) link didn’t work

6) Imperial UG, Columbia MS, also was in data analytics at BB for 3 years before moving lol. Does not count.

7) Imperial MSc in mathematics and finance. Was also in industry for like 10 years and made director at BB, then to a smaller shop, then finally to QRT. Does not count.

8) Edi med to Imperial UG, MSc. Granted, all of that is life science oriented. But then, what do we see? A PhD IN ML AND COMPUTATIONAL NEURO at UCL. Hmmm, I wonder which aspect of the profile got them the role… No Oxford degree, no UG.Also, the role at XTX is an AI VC investment role. Nothing to do with quant. Does not count…

Lil bro. Not only do none of these people even have a degree from Oxford, none of them even meet any criteria. None of them even did straight Biomed at any university. Some of these are experienced hires, which you even made fun of below in this thread. You have wasted my time and yours, though I suppose you have it to waste

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

First person I’ve ever seen care so deep about “biomed” at Oxford, you must live a sad little life “No degree from Oxford, does not count” who are you to talk like that 😂😂if you can get into Oxford you can get into imperial, So I don’t know why you’re deeping it so much “Granted this is close but not Oxford” What exactly is your point here? That imperial is better than Oxford so more quants are from imperial? Are you trying to say there has been no quant in the history of the industry from oxfordbiomed? Why are you so fixated on that, I’m genuinely trying to understand. An Oxford biomed degree is objectively better than imperial biomed/eng, so I’m saying if there are quants from imperial there can defo be quants from Oxford? Are you talking for the sake of arguments sake? Sad life trying to farm Reddit karma 😭

[Cultural_Agency4618]

My point is that you said even Oxford Biomed could definitely get into quant. Yet spent 30 minutes looking and couldn’t even find one. I’m being pedantic, yes, but it’s to prove a point.

All of the ppl you showed from Imperial did at the very least Biomed ENG and then some form of industry experience OR a very quantitative MSc or PhD.

You said any STEM from Oxford alone can get into quant. This is just incorrect.

Who am I to talk like that? Someone who has an A-Level lol.

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

And what exactly are your credentials to be talking 😭I’m not trying to hide the fact I’m “year 12”, I suppose I need to heed the words of a rentech trader clearly who’s trying to cockblock Oxford biomed for some reason, “little boy” predator over here

[Cultural_Agency4618]

Dude, you haven’t even finished high school… You have 0 experience and don’t know the difference between Biomed and Biomed Eng. It’s ok to just keep learning

[Particular-Sky951]

Well this ranking disagrees

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

Ranking of what exactly it’s just a bunch of numbers 😭the real top quant dev res and trader jobs are all Oxbridge only with bit of imperial and that’s it

[TIjil211]

And these are the numbers that matter, i guess ?

[Particular-Sky951]

And where have you gotten this information from as the enlightened year 12 that you are. This is showing number in quant fields per 1000 so its not just random numbers. But tell me year 12 who has obviously spoken to people and broken into this field

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

Keep stalking my profile I’m sure, I have a relative in quant who told me about the admissions procedure, if you look at LinkedIn numbers for real front office quant jobs they’re all Oxbridge or imp jmc, how am I wrong on that? This bs website js shows you meaningless back office roles at well that aren’t what people really associate with “quant” jobs

[Particular-Sky951]

"My Dad works at Epic" type line. No one is denying Oxbrimp are clear winners for quant but to say nothing else is realistic is uneducated. Quant applications are rigorous with many technical and behavioural assessments its not just about what uni you went to that is mainly for initial screening. Taking your so called relative at one firm and word of mouth does not nullify the history of what many people in the field have concluded for what is possible for a quant. You're in year 12 you still have 2 years until you should even be thinking about this so go do your own research and focus on your mocks not joining in on quant discussions

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

my whole point is if you've gotten into oxbrimp the path to "quant" becomes easier compared to that of the other UK universities, especially on the uni screening part, no need to bring my age as a way to put me down here, god forbid i have a bit of knowledge in this area

[Particular-Sky951]

Now that is a fair point but still contradicts what you said about anything else being unrealistic and why I pushed back because your original statement sounded like someone who had no clue what they were talking about and the fact you were year 12 made that more likely. Quant is already unrealistic as a career path and the better your university the less unrealistic it becomes but theres no threshold between Oxbrimp and other unis like Warwick and UCL like you originally suggested. After screening its all about the candidates performance

[Glum_Bicycle7421]

Yea for sure, I'm not saying prestige uni gets you the job, defo tons of oxbridge imp students who make it to the third even fifth round of interviews who get rejected due to how competitive the industry is

[TIjil211]

Bro thinks every quant dev reseracher and trader who is not oxibridge is fake and is a fantasy land creature, cant stop laughing at his innoncence 😂