Oxbridge Rejects 2023 - Come this way and commiserate

[Rejects]

As mentioned on the other thread a safe space for those who'd like a bit of support while not dampening others' moods Sorry that I have gone on a lot about this rejection already on here - it's helped me keep outwardly calm and cheerful when my ds has been very upset.

I am acutely aware in the scheme of things a university rejection is not a huge deal and that amazing lives and outcomes no doubt await all our dc wherever they go, it's just getting through the time between now and A levels and/or offers from other unis arriving, keeping dcs' morale up. Good luck everyone

That’s the nature of the market. Yet I am
fairly convinced (quant background, finance role) that an Imperial degree will not secure your job better than an Edinburgh degree will. Too often there is an element of luck involved. Location, interpersonal skills and hard work are better ways to improve one’s chances in my view, but you can get lucky or unlucky with any of these degrees.

tcd.gs.columbia.edu/content/program-overview

@1000decibels

Yes, there is a language element to the joint TCD/ Columbia U degree.

Imperial is ranked 15th for Computer Science in the world in a University ranked 6th and world-renowned for engineering and technology. The international fees are £ 35,100.00 per year and the £ 9,250.00 per year for undergraduate fees has to be one of the best investments any student can make. A student who has an offer of Imperial and wants to go to Imperial should absolutely go there.

Edinburgh is ranked 20th in the world for Computer Science in a University ranked 15th in the world with a world reputation for artificial intelligence, natural language processing and linguistics. I think I would choose Edinburgh if I were a student and the reason I would choose Edinburgh is that I think it is a really nice city and would really enjoy living there.

@mathanxiety, that looks like a really interesting programme.

Two years of being 'normal people' 😊 ' in Trinity, followed by two years in Columbia in NYC, sounds like a wonderful experience.

Not sure what you mean "that's the nature of the market" - you said that it's very much an employees' market right now. I was stating quite the opposite...tech did awfully last year with lots of layoffs coming into the new year as well - I personally know people who were affected and have been seeing lots of LinkedIn posts about this. This means fewer job vacancies and more competition.

Also, I work in trading at an investment bank and am looking for jobs currently so am very much speaking to headhunters/internal recruiters for trading roles. I've also been involved in the interviewing process and know what unis get more of a look.
Firstly, investment banks themselves are very selective when it comes to hiring for entry level positions in front office (IBD and Markets divisions). The concept of target and semi-target schools very much exist and you only need to Google how this works.

Target = Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial/Warwick/UCL. Semi-target = Durham/Bristol/Edinburgh/Bath etc.

Moving onto quant firms...they can afford to even more selective when it comes to this.
Having done a highly quantitative degree I often am contacted by headhunters for quant trading roles, and I've seen on LinkedIn for the very top quant firms they ask for an engineering/Maths/quantitative degree from a Tier 1 university. This usually means Oxbridge and Imperial in the UK, top Ivies, Grandes Ecoles in France etc. Warwick is also very good for Maths (top 4 in the UK) so will get a look too. UCL also to a lesser extent. And quant target names definitely do exist - again, you only need to Google...

So your argument that the brand name doesn't matter doesn't really hold... If you look at the people who end up at those firms on LinkedIn they're often from a very select group of universities.

This person on Reddit counted up which universities people came from for 20 top quant firms, and these were the results - it's quite clearly skewed towards a select few UK unis (scroll down to the UK results) and they did this with 21000 results. Clearly this indicates some bias towards brand names:

https://www.reddit.com/r/quant/comments/zhvqvn/universities_quant_feeders/

*caveat being that the search will turn up results for back office etc individuals but even with that... I don't know how you could argue that brand name doesn't really matter for those firms in the end. Hope this can be useful for other people in the thread too. It's a very lucrative area to go into, and certainly something many students will be looking at if afforded the opportunity.

The context was Edinburgh vs Imperial, not Imperial vs noname uni. And my point was that the negligible advantage of an Imperial vs Edinburgh is easily overshadowed by other qualities of the candidate, like teamwork and interpersonal skills. You are also focusing on the current stage of the business cycle (short-term), which doesn’t change the long term megatrend. Having said that, I don’t disagree that branding matters to some extent. My point is that when it is this close, there are also other (important) considerations.

I was specifically singling out quant firms, though, to illustrate the point that there are still instances where the brand name is still looked at (and also investment banks) at initial stages and where even those seemingly small differences matter (not just nonames). I already mentioned the concept of target unis, which you shouldn't just dismiss as this is something that is actually an important consideration during hiring for entry level jobs in "high finance". I've been part of campus recruiting and we definitely target certain universities more at my investment bank, even compared to the semi-targets like Edinburgh.

I agree that past a certain point, and also past X numbers of year experience, brand name doesn't matter as much but for the ones that are really quite selective (and I mean really) it's hard to ignore the data. The data that I sent a link for was raw; it shows that the modal universities for quant firms are basically Oxbridge, Warwick, UCL and LSE. I'm not really sure what you have to say to that one though... if the difference were so negligible you would expect to see Edinburgh come up in the figures too. Also, again, you can't ignore the sheer amount of sponsors that Imperial DocSoc gets in comparison. It's no coincidence.

Also tbh when it comes to quant trading/quant dev, teamwork and interpersonal skills are important but come a bit further down the list than just pure, technical skills...(lol otherwise the quants I would have come across would be a lot less socially awkward ;))

To make it abundantly clear, Edinburgh is very much a good university for anyone who wants to go into software development and there should be no questions about that. It just happens to be the case that you will maximise your chances by attending a uni where top employers sponsor your department heavily, hence increasing the odds of meeting them and getting hired, as well as taking into account the fact that certain, super-selective employers can and will afford to be very restrictive in their approach to hiring.

*Oxbridge, Warwick, UCL. Imperial and LSE for modal unis (oops)

Also as someone else did point out, Edinburgh has a very strong ML/AI focus and if the prospective student is particularly interested in that side of things, it wouldn't be a bad choice

The likelihood of many roles available in quantitative trading in three to five years time is low as so many of these roles will be taken over by AI. The era of investment banking hiring graduates directly from college to spend a few years working like robots is coming to an end. AI will do that much faster.

Currently, quantitative trading roles are increasingly being offered to graduates specialised in artificial intelligence. However, many of these roles will be replaced by artificial intelligence in the next few years.

This is a very bold statement to make.

Yes, quant trading roles are increasingly asking for people trained in AI. We are currently broadening our use of AI to analyse markets data,

This is a very bold statement to make.Yes, quant trading roles are increasingly asking for people trained in AI. We are currently broadening our use of AI to analyse markets data, and for spotting patterns or fine tuning ideas but AI cannot model financial markets on a forward looking basis. Markets are not predictable at least past the short term, so while it might help with things like momentum, the notion that quant dev + trading will be wiped out in a matter of a few years is...beyond me.

Also, you are using "investment banking" very broadly here. Some roles will definitely go quicker than others or will transition more to algo/systematic trading as has been the case. Market making/negotiating prices, which is what traders at investment banks do, benefits from a human touch which AI doesn't have. And especially client-involved roles like Sales cannot easily be replaced by AI....

You are not alone here with algo/quant experience, I had been an MD in derivatives for 15 years at tier 1 investment banks in London. I am very familiar with the practices, and also know that they are fed to HR from the top of the house- which is why it only applies to campus recruiting as you know. Hiring decisions beyond that point are in the hands of MDs on the floor, who shudder at the thought of an entitled graduate flashing an Oxbridge degree. Smart and hungry is an expression you’ll hear more often. You wouldn’t believe which bank was the strictest in its approach of as many as possible from Oxbridge for trading floors… let me give you a clue “No, absolutely not!”

Best wishes to your search @curiousllama I am sure you will do well. Please be assured that we’re not trying to discount your
degree, just sharing some observations based in our experience and perceptions. Which are actually not that different to yours, just apply to a different context (99% of ICT job market vs quant trading) and timeframe (long-term vs right now)

Thank you for the kind gesture - I do hope that I find a job that suits me a lot better! :)

I'm really not suggesting that an Oxbridge degree will do much past the initial screening stage - but I am suggesting that it's important to maximise your chances by going to the right set of unis, and yes, Oxbridge will more easily get your foot in the door vs a Bristol grad at the initial stages due to increased exposure to employers etc. Past that...eg at the assessment centres/interview stages I agree that no MD is just going to pick someone over the other just because they went to a slightly better uni as it's a lot more about competence at that point. I have, although, had my uni singled out on my CV even when interviewing for internal moves in a positive way so it seems to have had a bit of an impression haha

I was much more recently a grad than probably most of you guys still in my 20s and am not a Mum and when I interned at two bulge bracket investment banks (one US, one European) the makeup of the class quite clearly reflected the tiering of the universities (LSE, Bocconi, Imperial, UCL, Warwick, Oxbridge well represented with the likes of Bristol, Manchester, Edinburgh scattered about). It's not just me who was very aware of this but also this notion of target/semi-target unis is/was pretty well known when recruiting season was fully on and I was discussing with friends. I agree that we broadly agree, but it is sort of a question that I'd like to throw back to you: do you think all of this stuff is rubbish then? If you look at forums like WallStreetOasis there are heaps of threads discussing target/semi-target etc. I'm not asking in a mean-spirited way but I am quite surprised that you don't think that it's as important.

I'm also certainly not suggesting that you can't break into IB without going to a top 5 uni, but when given the choice why wouldn't you take the option that's easier (if that's what you're interested in)? I also don't think that this stuff matters as much the more senior you get, of course.

I think my perspective is different, as the early years are now way behind me. We used to hire hundreds of summer analysts from the top schools, kept around 150 for an analyst program, but in 3-4 years time (when you can actually start to reap the rewards) only a handful of them were still around. None of them were the entitled types, as the hours/ intensity can be brutal as you know, and it is a meritocracy so your degree is worth jack if your strategy is slaughtered by the market. Most of the winners were the ones who were disadvantaged at entry (not financially! mostly coming from less prestigious unis) so had a deep drive to prove themselves typically not present in the entitled crowd. Stars nearly always arrived from the untrodden path, Oxbridge and Harvard types just couldn’t keep up. Maybe a few from Cambridge maths, but rarely; PE and corporate banking suits those better, but pay is also different there. LSE and Imperial are probably the only exceptions, but I don’t think it’s because of the school, more due to the location. Investment banking is just hard if you come from a pampered environment in my view.

curiousllama, the points you make were all valid considerations for any student starting university in 2013 and interested in going into quantitative trading in 2016. Unfortunately, this is 2023 and so much has changed that these are no longer particularly relevant for a student graduating in 2026.

There won't be the same number of opportunities in the area due to advances in artificial intelligence. What opportunities that are available are more likely to be in New York or Amsterdam. The opportunities available back in 2016 simply won't be there in 2026.

When it comes to quant trading, there are unknowns as to which advancements will actually be impediments for job stability and which would be enhancements, but my point is still just as valid as now as it was then - AI cannot predict market behaviour, so I would still say that your original statement about swathes of investment banking being wiped out is a tad too hyperbolic I agree that job attrition will definitely be a thing for many jobs which will be reduced to execution at best, but you will still need trading acumen and/or human touch with many of these jobs.

All I have to say is thank god I wasn't in IBD... I know people who did exactly that: quitting after a few years. Those hours don't seem sustainable. Equally my boyfriend is a lawyer whose "usefulness" gets quantified by billables (as well as other things) and I don't know how people pull those ungodly hours. At least with S&T it's market hours and that's it.

I will note that a disproportionately large amount of kids that I interned with were from privileged backgrounds, home and international. Very few working class kids. Most from grammar/private schools, but obviously the % of privately educated/grammar is large at many of the top unis.

@JocelynBurnell ok I also left London a few months before the Brexit vote (not for Amsterdam, but fairly close) and left derivatives trading for PE, so my profile would suggest trailblazer rather than a sceptic, but I have been considering this rather temporary and find it difficult to put my head around this idea of Amsterdam / Dublin taking over the investment banking crown (for EU markets if course) mostly because the culture is not there, see my reference to location.
Sure, we are in a highly regulated onshoring business cycle, but sure it cannot last for long. Cutting off import of cheap stuff from the East is already decimating the standard of living; sovereigns, large corporates and MNCs have more reserves but they will also run out eventually.
Deglobalisation is a beautiful rhetoric, but the numbers are not there to support that vision for the West (similar to Brexit, more emotional than realistic), and Soviet style central planning in a new Cold War will not yield the results expected.
You reckon this madness will last longer than a few more years?

@curiousllama then times have changed. I was also in S&T but market hours were for flow desks only. Elephant hunters (structured and quants) used to stay
longer. Maybe not IBD hours but definitely not 8-5 as flow

I mean not strictly speaking market hours, of course, but certainly don't need to be on call at night/during the weekend. Mornings preparing commentary for the analysts/end of day analysing PnL/projects etc
From friends on various trading desks the hours really ranged from something like 6am-5pm in European cash equities, rates options were doing something like 8am-7pm or 8am-8pm, EUR swaps 7am-6pm or 6.30pm...EM would start really early too. Equity derivs 7.30am-7pm ish... more intense for sure, though, and less of a marathon than IBD suggests

++ those hours are also a bit longer as they were hours for when they were Analysts, so trim 30 min from either end and a VP+ could still be working an hour less

Appreciate that this thread has veered off topic but would you know much about AM and whether you think that it has a decent WLB pay despite the reduced comp potential? Eg in a PM role

Christ, this thread has been hijacked OP! Jeez @curiousllama @WEEonline @JocelynBurnell - get off and continue your niche debate elsewhere. Us humanities parents on this GENERAL thread don’t need it! Thanks

Well said @holidayhunters. This thread been a crashing bore tonight. Start your own one guys!

No idea what they're on about or what this has to do with anything!