A Few Questions for Twofish-Quant.

[AsianSensationK]

There's really very little information conveyed in a brand. A lot of emotion, but very little information. Coca-Cola is a powerful, powerful brand. It's just fizzy water in bottles. But Coca-Cola tastes *great!* Hmmmm... Could it be that it tastes great because you see so many commercials convincing you that it tastes great

Actually, yes, this is the best way to phrase it. A brand is most like an emotional experience, or an attitude. There isn't a lot of relevant stuff conveyed in a brand name. But they're powerful things because of how people think.

I have a quote in my marketing book from the CEO of McDonald's basically saying, "If we lost every single asset on our books today through some freak disaster, we would still make tons of money because of our brand. We could borrow what we need, and continue business with relatively little trouble. Heck, we could give you every single asset of ours, keep our brand, and still make more money than you this next quarter."

And the money that you get from donations go into glossy brochures that convince everybody else that the brand is cool. However, the trouble is that to maintain a brand, you need large amounts of cash, and most of the major elite universities got hit really, really hard by the financial crisis. Harvard lost $5 *billlion* and MIT lost something like $2 *billion*. It's much worse, because they were counting on 15% growth for money. If you end up with 3-5% growth, everything falls apart.

My argument is that in the next three or four years, it will become obvious that MIT has to do something really radical to survive.

I believe it. They have to make more money somewhere in order to meet their budgets.

 

[Edgardo]

Hello twofish-quant,

some of my fellow students work at banks which got me interested. Does your job involve "financial mathematics" as described on this website http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/finance.html" (for example option pricing)?

Do you use any of the books cited on the website?
And have you read Derman's "My life as a quant"?

You mentioned your C++ skills. Is there anything else that can make me interesting for banks?

Thanks in advance.

 

[twofish-quant]

some of my fellow students work at banks which got me interested. Does your job involve "financial mathematics" as described on this website http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/finance.html" (for example option pricing)?

More or less. The trouble with that website is that it's a bit outdated. The good/bad news is that there are about a dozen different types of jobs for physicists on Wall Street. Something interesting about mathematical finance is that it's a tiny, tiny part of finance, but finance is so large that it keeps physicists quite strongly employed.

Do you use any of the books cited on the website?

Sort of, but again the website is out of date. Curiously it doesn't contain one of the books which I think is essential reading which is Kuznetsov's "The Complete Guide to Capital Markets" and Fusai and Roncoroni's Implementing Models in Quantitative Finance: Methods and Cases. Also you should look at Springer-Verlag and Wiley Finance since they will get you an idea of the type of problems that you need.

And have you read Derman's "My life as a quant"?

Yes. Interesting book, but again, somewhat out of date. It's a very, very useful book if you look at it was history, but don't take it as a accurate representation of what Wall Street is like right now. One of the larger differences is that these are much. much more heavily computational than they were in the late-1990's. This is bad if you are a string theorist. Good if you are doing computational fluid dynamics.

Just to give one example of how Derman's book is a bit old. No one right now is that interested in modeling complex interest rate derivatives. People are interested right now in modeling negative and zero interest rates and counterparty default. You won't find a book that gives the standard method for doing that, because if there were a standard method for doing it, they wouldn't need you to figure out how to do it. Next year, they'll be interested in something very different.

You mentioned your C++ skills. Is there anything else that can make me interesting for banks?

One big thing is to be a physicist and focus on writing a quality dissertation. There's nothing wrong with being a finance or economics Ph.D. except that if your Ph.D. is in physics, you are going find it much easier to to be a physicist with basic finance knowledge rather than an expert in finance. If you try to turn into an MBA or finance expert, then you'll probably lose the skills that make you interesting to banks and hedge funds.

One other curious thing is that you will be seriously, seriously miserable if you go into finance in order to make lots of money. It's really weird, because once you are in finance, you will make money that most people outside of finance consider to be huge, but because you are constantly meeting people that make even more money, so you end up feeling quite poor. Finance is also a horrible place to be if you like to be on top of the heap, for the same reasons. Also you'll probably end up living in the NYC area, which is both good and bad.

The one thing that would be useful is to read some standard finance texts. There is a huge amount of jargon. It's not that difficult to pick up, and it helps if you know it.

The other thing is to try to *think* about the "big questions." Are there too many investment bankers? Is what you are doing really economically useful? Personally, I think finance is economically useful, and there aren't too many investment bankers, but you have to think about this for yourself. The basic issue is that if you aren't really generating economic value, then you are just part of a bubble, and if you are part of a bubble, you are likely to get smashed.

The reason that you need to think about this for yourself, is that I really don't want to take the moral responsibility for encouraging you to go into a career that is going to blow up in three years. On the other hand, I don't want to the talk the moral responsibility for discouraging you from going into something that is going to boom. So I'll just say that its something that you have to think about.

 

[peppies]

Intelligence is overrated. I'm not particularly smart. Persistent as heck, yes, but I'm not a math genius. If you are brilliant, but you can't take orders and work with other people, then you are going to be have serious, serious problems on Wall Street. Being pleasant and cheerful under stress, is probably a much, much more important job qualification than intelligence. If you are average intelligence but you are cool when everything falls apart, you are going to do better than someone that is a super math genius that people can't stand to talk to or who completely freezes when everything goes bad.

The reason Wall Street likes Ph.D.'s has little to do with intelligence. If you have a Ph.D. then this is proof that once in your life you sat down and did a project on your own, and did whatever you need to do to get the job done even if you were bored and depressed.

The reason Wall Street likes people that are good with math is that if you are good with math, you are probably very flexible. Suppose you are really, really good with algebraic topology. Now it turns out that algebraic topology isn't that useful, but suppose you find out that stochastic statistical auto-coorelations models are import. Someone that doesn't have a math Ph.D. may just wait around looking for someone to teach them this stuff, but no one has time. If you are really good with math, then you go on google, download papers, buy some books from Amazon, and teach themselves what they need to know.

Again, this is one reason why Wall Street likes Ph.D.'s since this is the type of stuff that you have to do for your dissertation. If you have a Ph.D. and you don't know something, your first reaction is to go to the library to read about it, or to call someone up and talk to them about it. If you don't have a Ph.D., then you might just be sitting around waiting for someone to tell you what to do, which is just deadly, since everyone is too busy to tell you want you need to do, and no one really knows.

Twofish-Quant, I just happened to read your responses and wanted to ask for some advice. I was actually looking into these kinds of Wall Street jobs and got shot down since essentially all of them require MS and Ph.D and I currently have a BS in Physics and minor in Mathematics.

The only thing that is preventing me from getting an MS or Ph.D in physics is the money. If it wasn't for that and $100k already in student debt, I would be comfortably studying for an MS and Ph.D.

To me, it sounds like you are saying that Ph.D is mostly used as an indicator of proof that someone can work independently for a long long time without giving up easily and having the ability to adapt and learn new things (much like my time studying the physics major).

I have much of these qualities and have the determination to self-teach myself new things. In fact, I am moving towards a different career path as an Actuary (while still looking for physics related jobs.) So I had to go out, buy Actuary texts, study them and take special exams for this field. I've never taken any finance or Actuary classes in college, yet I am able to improvise. The benefit here is I can actually afford these books rather than a Ph.D. On top of that, I've self-taught myself in computer skills and programming to a point good enough to build and run an online business over the past 5 years (more proof of teaching myself new skills to make money.)

Now what am I suppose to do in order to get one of these Wall Street jobs by getting around the MS and Ph.D wall that is pretty much impossible for me to do because of a lack of money? To me it sounds like I can fit right in with that Ph.D mindset and research determination to do tough long jobs, plus I have some intelligence, but the only thing missing is the actual Ph.D or MS title. Any advice?

Thanks

 

[twofish-quant]

Twofish-Quant, I just happened to read your responses and wanted to ask for some advice. I was actually looking into these kinds of Wall Street jobs and got shot down since essentially all of them require MS and Ph.D and I currently have a BS in Physics and minor in Mathematics.

Most jobs on Wall Street require some sort of masters degree. There's very little available for people with only a bachelors. Most people in Wall Street don't have Ph.D.'s and in quantitative finance, it tends to be 50/50 with half the people having Ph.D.'s and the other half having a Masters in computer science or something similar + work experience.

There is a market for physics bachelors in management consulting, but that's a different market.

The only thing that is preventing me from getting an MS or Ph.D in physics is the money. If it wasn't for that and $100k already in student debt, I would be comfortably studying for an MS and Ph.D.

In the case of physics Ph.D. programs, money isn't a huge factor since typically the school pays you, and you can defer payment (and depending on the loan possibly get subsidized interest) while you get getting the degree.

To me, it sounds like you are saying that Ph.D is mostly used as an indicator of proof that someone can work independently for a long long time without giving up easily and having the ability to adapt and learn new things (much like my time studying the physics major).

It's proof that you can work semi-independently on a specific type of problem.

Now what am I suppose to do in order to get one of these Wall Street jobs by getting around the MS and Ph.D wall that is pretty much impossible for me to do because of a lack of money? To me it sounds like I can fit right in with that Ph.D mindset and research determination to do tough long jobs, plus I have some intelligence, but the only thing missing is the actual Ph.D or MS title. Any advice?

First of all, the title is important, because anyone can say that they can do X, but the employer is looking for proof that they can do X. Now there are some alternate ways of getting that proof (enlisting in the military), but there's a chicken/egg quality to them (i.e. you need a job to get experience, but you need experience to get a job.) The other thing to do is to get a job (any job) pay down the loans, get a masters, and then go off to Wall Street (assuming of course that it's still there in some recognizable form in about five years.) Now is a lousy time to move into finance. Things may be very different in two years.

One other thing to remember is that especially when an employer first looks at you. You are a cog in the machine. You are not a human being, but rather one of ten people looking for a position. Yes, you may very will be able to do the same quality work as someone else, but why should the employer take the risk?

The other thing is that I really don't think that money should deter you from getting a Ph.D. because the stipends are paid for by the school.

 

[Goldbeetle]

Also MIT and Harvard are for-profit institutions. MIT has $10 billion and Harvard has $35 billion. The business model of MIT and Harvard is to get smart people admitted, make their alumni rich and powerful, and they collect the cash each year when some freshman calls you up for donations. You *can* buy your way into either MIT or Harvard, but it requires more money than anyone reading this will ever see. (I'd say $5 million or so in cash will do it).

One reason elite universities will let people buy their way in is because much of the reason middle class families want their kids to go to Harvard/MIT is that your kids get the meet the kids of people that can drop $5 million to get their kids in.

One thing about wealth it's just like knowledge. Now that I work on Wall Street, I feel a lot poorer than I did before I came up here. I'm making more money, but I'm exposed to people that make even more money.

I agree! Plus, I know of at least two books discussing this and the buying your way into big-name universities. I hope I can retrieve the titles and post them.

 

[twofish-quant]

I agree! Plus, I know of at least two books discussing this and the buying your way into big-name universities. I hope I can retrieve the titles and post them.

It even happens at a smaller level. The more money that you have, the more you can hire tutors, buy consultants, and generally figure out the rules. As with most things there is a lot of social process involved so you just can't show up with a suitcase of money and buy an admissions, but if you have money, you can figure out what the rules are.

Also the fact that you can buy your way into the big universities, makes it even more attractive for people in the middle class. If you are middle class in the United States, chances are, you don't have any close friends that make $50 million a year, so the fact that your son or daughter is going to a school where they likely will set up some close friendships or even marriages with the son or daughter or someone that makes $50 million/year makes sending your kid to Harvard more attractive.

I should point out that this really does concern people that went to big name universities, and part of the reason I post about my experiences is to help level the playing field a bit, and that's also why I'm interested in trying to expand educational opportunities in general.

The big name universities exist in large part so that the power elite can remain in power, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, because the power elite realizes that if you make things too exclusive, then you'll set yourself up for a revolution in which all of the people that can think are trying to pull you down, and all of the people that are on the inside are just idiots. So you end up with this odd system in which if you have a relative that went to the school or truly large amounts of money, you get in, but most of the places go to people that *don't* have connections, so they get sucked into the system.

 

[twofish-quant]

Something that may surprise people is that I'm a big fan of Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, C. Wright Mills, and Noam Chomsky, and I think that Karl Marx more or less accurately described the nature of capitalism which is exploitation of the working class by the power elite.

So why am I being a Wall Street corporate drone rather than going out on the streets fomenting revolution. Well, if I lived in 1920, I would have likely done that. The trouble is that I live in 2010, and what happens is that after you have the revolution, you end up with a new power elite that can behave as badly as the old power elite. For that matter look at the power relationships in academia.

I see the the solution to the problem is to generate so much wealth, that the working class *can be* ruthlessly exploited and still live a decent life.

 

[NINHARDCOREFAN]

I double-majored in Computer Science and Applied Math as an undergrad and have a Masters in Computer Science. Is it worth for me to pursue a quant because I won't be trying for a PHD in the future? I mean I will hit celing in salary wise very quckly right if I have just Masters.

 

[ferm]

Dear twofish-quant,

"How many hours per week do you work?"

50-60

I remember that in a previous post (in the "physics phd to quant" thread) you wrote

I don't know of any Ph.D.'s that work killer hours.

I would have said 60 hours per week are quite close to killer hours, but I see my scale might be wrong... I assume you don't have many more days off than the average job (say about 30 days per year) and you work on weekends, am I right?

I could understand working some years this amount of time, but I think it has to be difficult, for example, to raise a family in this situation. Assuming you get some sleep, of course :).

Would you say this is temporary, i.e. in a few years you will probably be working a more relaxed schedule, or not?

Thank you!

 

[kote]

50-60 hours is an average workload to have at a large corporation regardless of background, at least if you want to have a remote chance of ever being promoted. At the typical large corporation you can expect to start with 10 days of vacation per year in the US.

I have friends on Wall Street doing mergers and acquisitions who work twice as many hours. A lot of engineer friends are going to graduate school part time on top of 60 hours of work per week.

You don't have to do any of that, but you may have to find a smaller company or accept that you probably won't go much further in your career if you choose to work only 40 hours per week. There are exceptions of course, but in general I wouldn't count on having 40 hour weeks with 30 days of vacation in the US.

 

[ferm]

I have friends on Wall Street doing mergers and acquisitions who work twice as many hours. A lot of engineer friends are going to graduate school part time on top of 60 hours of work per week.

This sounds completely insane to me. Working that many hours a week means you devote 100% of your time to work and don't even have enough sleep. For sure these people's health has to resent...

Does that change much in London, for example? There I met 2 physics PhDs that had been working in finance only for some months and they didn't complain about working so long hours (I didn't ask how long they worked anyway).

 

[Locrian]

This sounds completely insane to me. Working that many hours a week means you devote 100% of your time to work and don't even have enough sleep. For sure these people's health has to resent...

On another forum I frequent we get a rare but reliable stream of investment bankers who pass through. Many of them claim to work 100-120 hours a week, and know lots of others that do. The lifestyle, as they describe it, simply involves no family time and little sleep. You work constantly, except when you play. You might also sleep a little. The way they see it, the probability that they'll stay on Wall Street for more than a decade is near zero anyways (off to a consulting house with you!), so they give it 200% for as long as they can hang around.

It's difficult for me to tell what proportion of investment bankers and lawyers live that life - here on physicsforums, all the quants who I've seen post (sample n = 2) have much more reasonable hours (50-60). If I run into any of those posts I'll link them here, ans they're a fun read, regardless of how representative they are.

 

[twofish-quant]

You don't have to do any of that, but you may have to find a smaller company or accept that you probably won't go much further in your career if you choose to work only 40 hours per week.

Also my experience is that some small startups also will have you work insane hours. The thing about some small companies is that they take on the aspects of cults. The other thing is that 60 hours/week is a *lot* less time at work than graduate school

 

[away22]

Entry level people in investment banking do work 70-100 hours a week on a consistent basis, but this is really only for the first 2-3 years. After that, many folks move off to private equity, hedge funds, consulting, etc... where the hours (and pay) are much better. Also, the more senior people in banking don't work that many hours, although they may have a few weeks (eg when they have a deal coming up) where they do put in those kinds of hours.

But most physics PhD's and quants don't go into investment banking, so you guys don't have to worry about those types of ridiculous hours. If you're in trading, portfolio management, analytics, or the other typical quant roles, you're probably looking at 50-65 hours a week, as someone mentioned above. You really can't expect any less if you're serious about making it in the industry. Some of the back-office positions may demand less hours, but of course your future opportunities, and more importantly your pay, is severely limited as well.

 

[twofish-quant]

This sounds completely insane to me. Working that many hours a week means you devote 100% of your time to work and don't even have enough sleep. For sure these people's health has to resent...

People that work in mergers and accquistions do work totally insane hours, but a lot of that is episodic. It ramps up toward the end of the deal. I don't know of anyone in technology or front office that works anywhere near as long hours as people in M&A. If the markets are closed then there isn't that much for a trader to do.

There I met 2 physics PhDs that had been working in finance only for some months and they didn't complain about working so long hours (I didn't ask how long they worked anyway).

Physics Ph.D.'s in investment banks just don't work totally insane hours. It's roughly about 50-60 hours/week with four weeks of vacation. People in Europe have somewhat more vacation. People in Asia work somewhat longer hours.

 

[twofish-quant]

On another forum I frequent we get a rare but reliable stream of investment bankers who pass through.

One thing that one has to be careful here is job titles. On Wall Street, the term "investment banker" is a specific job title, and that belongs to a small fraction of the people that work in an investment bank. If you have a physics Ph.D. then for the purposes of this discussion you probably won't be an "investment banker" and that's a good thing. The starting salary/bonus for a physics Ph.D. is roughly that of an MBA entry-level analyst, but MBA entry-level analysts work 100-120 hours/week and the competition that MBA's have for IB jobs is killer, whereas there isn't nearly that much competition for Ph.D. jobs.

It's difficult for me to tell what proportion of investment bankers and lawyers live that life - here on physicsforums, all the quants who I've seen post (sample n = 2) have much more reasonable hours (50-60). If I run into any of those posts I'll link them here, ans they're a fun read, regardless of how representative they are.

Different parts of the bank have *very* different cultures, and I know there are people that work crazy hours because whenever I leave (around 7:00 p.m.) there is a line of food delivery people in the lobby.

 

[twofish-quant]

If you're in trading, portfolio management, analytics, or the other typical quant roles, you're probably looking at 50-65 hours a week, as someone mentioned above. You really can't expect any less if you're serious about making it in the industry. Some of the back-office positions may demand less hours, but of course your future opportunities, and more importantly your pay, is severely limited as well.

I don't get the sense that back office positions work substantially less. Also, if you work in the back office, you have a much, much smaller chance of getting a multimillion dollar salary, but at the same time the salaries are decent if you look at them in comparison to other industries. The other thing is that there is this giant restructuring of the financial industry, and my guess is that some positions that traditionally were considered back-water positions (risk) will turn out to be very important.

The other thing is that how those 50-65 hours/week are distributed is important. The group that I'm in is pretty flexible about how the hours are distributed so people routinely leave early for family reasons, and then you find them logged in from home late at night to make up the difference. What's also interesting is the sociology around how long you work. The odd thing is that no one punches a time clock, and no one really monitors your work time, but somehow people get some pressure to keep working.

 

[brushman]

Could you describe a typical day at work for a "quant"?

How's opportunity for advancement?

Do you actually get to use lots of math/programming/general problem solving, or is it just lots of buisy work?

 

[mal4mac]

I see the the solution to the problem is to generate so much wealth, that the working class *can be* ruthlessly exploited and still live a decent life.

What makes you think that will work! It certainly hasn't so far...

 

[mark55]

Hello,

I also have a few questions about a career in finance. My background is I did a PhD in high energy particle physics, with a lot of c++ experience. Since then I have spent 5 years as a postdoc working on one of the LHC experiments (again a lot of C++ and in recent years python, work a lot in teams of international people, self motivated at learning new skills when required etc etc). I know I do not want to try to become a lecturer (and anyway its I can see colleagues 5-10 years ahead of me in their careers unable to get such positions already, so doubt I have much chance - and that is part of the reason I don't want to focus my career plan on that) and I don't think I can spend the rest of my life doing postdocs (if they gave me a permanent position doing what I do now I would probably stay...but let's face it academia does not work like that). So if I can get paid to do something else interesting with better long term career prospects I am all for it.

Basically my dilemma is with the LHC starting up I would like to (and almost certainly can) stay working on it to analyse the data for several years - just because they will pay me decent money to do something fun. BUT is there any sort of age cutoff for moving into a career in finance? i.e. does doing too many years in academia post phd harm your chances of moving into finance (or other careers) positions using similar skill sets? In essence will I do myself long term career damage by staying 3 or 4 years more (I am 31 now, and 5 years after my phd)?

Thanks,

Mark

 

[kylem]

This thread was an interesting read.

 

[twofish-quant]

Basically my dilemma is with the LHC starting up I would like to (and almost certainly can) stay working on it to analyse the data for several years - just because they will pay me decent money to do something fun. BUT is there any sort of age cutoff for moving into a career in finance?

As long as you are learning new things (and there are always new things to learn), you don't need to worry too much about this. One thing that you should try to do is to stay on the cutting edge of whatever it is that you are doing.

In essence will I do myself long term career damage by staying 3 or 4 years more (I am 31 now, and 5 years after my phd)?

I got into Wall Street when I was 37, so you'll still be younger than me when I switched. I remember a group of people looking over the resume of someone that was interested in a finance related position at age 63.

 

[ferm]

I got into Wall Street when I was 37, so you'll still be younger than me when I switched. I remember a group of people looking over the resume of someone that was interested in a finance related position at age 63.

I had the same idea as mark55, I understood going after too many post-docs harmed the potential to find good jobs. Did you get into Wall Street directly from academia or you worked in industry before? My (possibily wrong) idea was that employers do not like to hire people who have been too many years in academia...

 

[twofish-quant]

I had the same idea as mark55, I understood going after too many post-docs harmed the potential to find good jobs

This is a problem in academia. As long as you have usable skills, it's not really a problem in industry.

Did you get into Wall Street directly from academia or you worked in industry before?

Ph.D. -> commercial programming -> Wall Street

The big reason that I ended up on Wall Street is that the glass ceiling there is a lot higher. In most non-financial programming, you reach a point in which to advance any more you have to stop doing geek-work and start giving powerpoints for the rest of your life. There is that sort of glass ceiling in finance, but it's a lot, lot higher.

My (possibily wrong) idea was that employers do not like to hire people who have been too many years in academia...

Some will. Some won't. The good news is that in industry there are enough jobs, so that even if most employers toss your resume in the trash the second they see it, there still is going to be someone that will hire you, and all you need is one person to hire you.

In the case of finance, this tends not to be a problem since the work that you did in graduate school and as a post-doc is relevant experience.

 

[kylem]

Would an MSEE from a top engineering school in something like Artificial Intelligence, Stochastic Control, Adaptive Control, or Signal Processing get a person a job on Wall Street (a quant or something similar)?

Or a MS in Computer Science in AI/Machine Learning?

 

[twofish-quant]

Would an MSEE from a top engineering school in something like Artificial Intelligence, Stochastic Control, Adaptive Control, or Signal Processing get a person a job on Wall Street (a quant or something similar)?

Depends on the amount of application programming you've done. A few things about Wall Street jobs

One thing about Wall Street is that lots of interesting things are going on, but the movies and television make it seem like everyone in finance is a millionaire whereas most people aren't. If you look at any movie on Wall Street, the more interesting thing is to look in the background of any trading floor, you see lots and lots of computers. And lots of computers mean a lot of computer babysitters.

 

[ferm]

In the case of finance, this tends not to be a problem since the work that you did in graduate school and as a post-doc is relevant experience.

I guess not all post-doc experience will be relevant, am I right? E.g. if you are in a field without heavy statistics or programming needs (which is my case btw), I guess it will be more difficult. At least if you are younger you might go for an internship or get a M.Sc. to overcome this, but I understand this gets more difficult as you get old (and you need more money, and you don't have savings)...

Also, I understood that in industry employers look for young people they can train or for older people with experience. This is what I see here in Spain, but that might be because here, once you hire someone, it is very expensive to get rid of him in case he doesn't work well. I might well have a distorted view of industry, however...

 

[twofish-quant]

I guess not all post-doc experience will be relevant, am I right? E.g. if you are in a field without heavy statistics or programming needs (which is my case btw), I guess it will be more difficult.

It's more difficult. However, you can try to make it relevant.

At least if you are younger you might go for an internship or get a M.Sc. to overcome this, but I understand this gets more difficult as you get old (and you need more money, and you don't have savings)...

Once you have a post-doc, another masters degree in a technical subject is likely to be a waste of time and money. If you need to learn statistics and programming, go onto to Amazon, buy a dozen books, and teach yourself statistics and/or programming, and then look for excuses to use them in your work.

 

[xiaoguiren]

Ummmm...

I think I've got a similar problem. I was very interest in computational physics when I was still an undergraduate, but my current job does not related with it at all. I tried to learn more programming skill and solve some realistic problem in my spare time. But now I find I'm really confused. I don't know what kind of work is really useful , and what I should do next, and why should I do this. Then I think it's boring , meaningless and finally give up. It doesn't mean I am not interest in CP any more, but I don't know what can I benefit from it.

My major is physics , and I've made me familiar with some basic knowledge in programming, numerical mathematics and simulation, maybe not that professional but enough for some simple applications.

What should I do or learn next? Maybe you can give me some advices.
Thanks very much!