Math Can I still become a quant with a criminal record?

[KamenRiderTorbjorn]

For starters I don't go to a college like Stanford, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, etc. I am interested in becoming a quant, but the issue is that I was arrested a few years ago. Long story short I didn't get convicted of the crime and it was later expunged. Even though I was not convicted is it still possible for me to become a quant or is that not possible now?

 

[rkr]

It is still possible even if you don't go to a feeder school. There's plenty of mid-tier firms that don't hire directly from feeder schools. To get to a top tier firm though, you will likely have to take a hop (e.g. first job, internships) at reputed firms in related fields (e.g. tech).

As for your background records, I guess from a legal standpoint you have no reason to disclose and from an administrative standpoint there is good likelihood the firm will never know. So again, yes it is still possible.

 

[Zap]

You could still most likely join the FBI, if you wanted to, unless it was a drug charge.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You asked about your legal status here two years ago. You got some good advice - talk to a lawyer. Instead you asked on Reddit, Now you're back asking us.

Stop wasting your time. Stop wasting ours. Talk to a damn lawyer.

I think you need to take a serious look at yourself before going down this path. First it will take you 5-10 years from where you are now to complete this, and over the last two years you have changed your mind about what you want to do several times. Given that, I'd plan for shorter goals - I'll do X in two years, and my next step after that will be A or B or maybe C. Perhaps one of these leads to being a quant.

Also, your history is that you did poorly in math in HS, and then in CC your grades zoomed up. Maybe it's because you are learning better now. Maybe it's grad inflation, which many CC's are notorious for. I'd want to know before setting my sights on being a quant.

 

[KamenRiderTorbjorn]

You asked about your legal status here two years ago. You got some good advice - talk to a lawyer. Instead you asked on Reddit, Now you're back asking us.

Stop wasting your time. Stop wasting ours. Talk to a damn lawyer.

I think you need to take a serious look at yourself before going down this path. First it will take you 5-10 years from where you are now to complete this, and over the last two years you have changed your mind about what you want to do several times. Given that, I'd plan for shorter goals - I'll do X in two years, and my next step after that will be A or B or maybe C. Perhaps one of these leads to being a quant.

Also, your history is that you did poorly in math in HS, and then in CC your grades zoomed up. Maybe it's because you are learning better now. Maybe it's grad inflation, which many CC's are notorious for. I'd want to know before setting my sights on being a quant.

It's not grade inflation at all. I am doing better in math at my CC than I did back in HS. I just wanted to know whether I can be a quant developer despite not going to MIT, Carnegie, CalTech, etc. and the fact that I have an arrest record.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's not grade inflation at all.

Good to hear.

I have an arrest record.

Talk to a lawyer.

 

[KamenRiderTorbjorn]

so in other words its not going to happen?

 

[haushofer]

So in other words: talk to a lawyer :P

 

[KamenRiderTorbjorn]

I can't afford to talk to a lawyer. Besides what does a lawyer have anything do do about being a quant anyway?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I can't afford to talk to a lawyer

So instead you are going to ask people who don't know the answer? Does this sound smart? Further, if you type those exact words into Google, you get 48 million hits. But instead you come to a forum of people who are not lawyers for legal advice. Does this sound smart?

 

[KamenRiderTorbjorn]

First off I came here to ask whether or not I can be a quant or not because I have an arrest record that got expunged. No way shape or form I came here for legal advice. I came here for CAREER ADVICE hence why I posted in this thread. I mean what am I going to tell him/her "oh hey I want to be a quant, but I have an expunged arrest record. Can I still be a quant someday"? I highly doubt they'll know what a quant is and would know that answer. Also when you say lawyer what lawyer do you want me to talk to? Criminal Lawyer? Employment Lawyer? Tax Lawyer? Thats why I came here to ask whether or not if I can become a quant still.

 

[Office_Shredder]

My rough understanding is if you are an employee for a stock broker, you cannot have committed a felony in the last ten years, or certain kinds of misdemeanors. I don't think an arrest is disqualifying. You usually don't have to disclose being arrested during the interview process I think, don't they only ask about felonies (and some states don't even allow that). So I guess the answer is, probably? Not all quants even work for a broker dealer, at which point it's just like getting any other job.

 

[KamenRiderTorbjorn]

I don't have any felonies or convictions. Just that one arrest and that's it.

 

[Locrian]

If you're trying to become a quant, you're not going about it the right way, and I think you need to explore other methods of getting the info you need. Any time you spend here is time you could have been doing something useful towards your goal.

If you're just trolling Vanadium 50 then you're doing fine and you have my full support.

 

[CrysPhys]

First off I came here to ask whether or not I can be a quant or not because I have an arrest record that got expunged. No way shape or form I came here for legal advice. I came here for CAREER ADVICE hence why I posted in this thread. I mean what am I going to tell him/her "oh hey I want to be a quant, but I have an expunged arrest record. Can I still be a quant someday"? I highly doubt they'll know what a quant is and would know that answer. Also when you say lawyer what lawyer do you want me to talk to? Criminal Lawyer? Employment Lawyer? Tax Lawyer? Thats why I came here to ask whether or not if I can become a quant still.

You did not ask for typical career advice such as desired educational background, job opportunities, salary, or working conditions as a quant. You specifically asked whether a prior arrest (no conviction, record expunged) would bar you from employment as a quant. That indeed falls into the category of seeking legal advice, rather than career advice. I would first consult an employment attorney. If he decides that he's not the appropriate attorney, he will then refer you to an appropriate attorney. Typically, an attorney does not charge for an initial brief call in which you explain your situation and the type of help you need (confirm this with any particular attorney). He will then decide whether your case is within his scope of practice, or whether you would be better served by someone else. If it's within his scope, he will provide you with a cost estimate.

No one here can provide you with a definitive answer (which may depend on a number of factors) unless he's an attorney. And no attorney will provide legal advice (specific to an individual case) in a public forum. The most you can expect is, "In general, here are various factors and regulations to consider: ... For an answer to your specific case, consult an attorney."

 

[Office_Shredder]

I still maintain the answer is probably. Are you still going to school? Just apply for an internship where you want to work, if a previous arrest is disqualifying they will say something during the application process. That will probably be more informative than anything you will get from this thread.

 

[gmax137]

Look, if the job application asks "have you been convicted of a felony" you can say "no." If it asks, "have you ever been arrested, even if not convicted?" nobody here can say if being "expunged" allows you to answer honestly, "no." That's a legal question (what does "expunged" really mean?)

If your question is, "if I answer yes, will I still be hired?" then again, nobody here can answer, since it depends on the job, the interviewer, the crime, the circumstances, why it was expunged, and so on...

 

[bhobba]

Regarding are you up to the technical challenge a good guide would be doing some actuarial exams. They are well known to sort the men from the boys as far as financial math is concerned. If you pass them that also opens up another avenue to consider instead of a quant - being an Actuary - these days they are closely related anyway - one of the possible ways of meeting one of the requirements to be a Fellow of the Actuarial Society here in Aus is to be a Certified Financial Analyst. But just to indicate the rigour they require another possible way is to have a PhD. One of my professors said, overall, it is about halfway between a Masters and a Phd - but to compensate the pay and job prospects are excellent. I doubt your previous legal history will be an issue - but as has been emphasised do consult a lawyer.

Thanks
Bill

 

[CrysPhys]

To: OP. A key piece of missing info is how far along are you in the route preparing to becoming a quant?

At one extreme, if you've already committed X years and are near the end of the route, and are only now asking whether some incident in your past will bar you from employment as a quant, well, the question is rather moot, isn't it? You might as well just apply, and see if you qualify or not.

On the other extreme, if you are just starting out on a program that will take X years to complete, and you have this nagging worry at the back of your mind that some incident in your past will cause that X years to have been in vain, then it's certainly worthwhile to consult an attorney in advance, isn't it? Do you really want to depend on random people posting, "You're probably OK, I guess." [even, if they assert with forceful conviction, "Yes, I'm certain that you're probably OK, I guess." ]? And suppose, hypothetically, someone does post, "Oh, I too was arrested for a crime, was not convicted, and got my record expunged. And, yipee, I was hired as a quant. [Or, alternatively, crap, I was barred from being hired as a quant.]"? Can you generalize that poster's scenario to your own, given all the variables that could come into play?

 

[Zap]

I was arrested when I was 21 and was convicted of a DWI. It has not held me back at all. The typical job application, and even some applications for security clearances, will ask about felony charges and drug related charges in the past 7 years. That happened ten years ago for me, so it has absolutely no affect on my life. Your arrest may not even show up on a background check. I would just pretend that it never happened, because unless you're joining the military or joining the FBI, no one is going to ask you if you have ever been arrested for anything in your lifetime. That doesn't mean you can't still join the military or join the FBI. You'd just have to tell them that at one point you were arrested. Typical jobs are looking for felony convictions in the past 7 years. You weren't even convicted of anything. I wouldn't give it a second thought.

 

[CrysPhys]

I was arrested when I was 21 and was convicted of a DWI. It has not held me back at all. The typical job application, and even some applications for security clearances, will ask about felony charges and drug related charges in the past 7 years. That happened ten years ago for me, so it has absolutely no affect on my life. Your arrest may not even show up on a background check. I would just pretend that it never happened, because unless you're joining the military or joining the FBI, no one is going to ask you if you have ever been arrested for anything in your lifetime. That doesn't mean you can't still join the military or join the FBI. You'd just have to tell them that at one point you were arrested. Typical jobs are looking for felony convictions in the past 7 years. You weren't even convicted of anything. I wouldn't give it a second thought.

On the flip side, people applying to take the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) Patent Bar Exam need to answer a series of questions to assess their "moral character and reputation" . [General Requirements Bulletin, Application for Registration to Practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, lines 14 -- 21. Can be downloaded from: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-...ers/becoming-patent-practitioner/registration]

One of the questions is the following:

"15. Have you ever been arrested, charged, or held by Federal, State, or other law enforcement authorities for any violation of any Federal or State law, or any country or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance? (Do not include any misdemeanor before your 16th birthday or traffic violations for which the fine was $100.00 or less.)"

If you answer "YES" to anyone of these questions, you must provide a detailed explanation and documentation:

"BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Candor and truthfulness are significant elements of fitness relevant to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. You should, therefore, provide the Office of Enrollment and Discipline with all available information, however unfavorable, even if its relevance is in doubt, with regard to the questions asked below. For each question answered “YES,” provide a detailed statement setting forth all relevant facts and dates along with verified copies of relevant documents. Your responses must be updated, as necessary, prior to your registration. Any documents, evidence or proofs previously filed in a prior application need not be resubmitted unless your response to a question must be changed. Failure to disclose the requested information may result in denial of registration or in disciplinary proceedings, should you become registered. See 37 CFR §§ 11.7(a)(2)(ii), 11.19, and 11.801."

Answering "YES" does not automatically disqualify you. But not answering truthfully can create problems (even further down the line in your career, should you take the exam, pass, and become a registered patent practitioner; and someone digs into your past).

What questions a prospective quant would face, I don't know; and I won't guess.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

You asked about your legal status here two years ago. You got some good advice - talk to a lawyer. Instead you asked on Reddit, Now you're back asking us.

Stop wasting your time. Stop wasting ours. Talk to a damn lawyer.

I think you need to take a serious look at yourself before going down this path. First it will take you 5-10 years from where you are now to complete this, and over the last two years you have changed your mind about what you want to do several times. Given that, I'd plan for shorter goals - I'll do X in two years, and my next step after that will be A or B or maybe C. Perhaps one of these leads to being a quant.

Also, your history is that you did poorly in math in HS, and then in CC your grades zoomed up. Maybe it's because you are learning better now. Maybe it's grad inflation, which many CC's are notorious for. I'd want to know before setting my sights on being a quant.

No one is wasting your time. It's your decision how to waste it.

 

[Zap]

On the flip side, people applying to take the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) Patent Bar Exam need to answer a series of questions to assess their "moral character and reputation" . [General Requirements Bulletin, Application for Registration to Practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, lines 14 -- 21. Can be downloaded from: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-...ers/becoming-patent-practitioner/registration]

One of the questions is the following:

"15. Have you ever been arrested, charged, or held by Federal, State, or other law enforcement authorities for any violation of any Federal or State law, or any country or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance? (Do not include any misdemeanor before your 16th birthday or traffic violations for which the fine was $100.00 or less.)"

If you answer "YES" to anyone of these questions, you must provide a detailed explanation and documentation:

"BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Candor and truthfulness are significant elements of fitness relevant to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. You should, therefore, provide the Office of Enrollment and Discipline with all available information, however unfavorable, even if its relevance is in doubt, with regard to the questions asked below. For each question answered “YES,” provide a detailed statement setting forth all relevant facts and dates along with verified copies of relevant documents. Your responses must be updated, as necessary, prior to your registration. Any documents, evidence or proofs previously filed in a prior application need not be resubmitted unless your response to a question must be changed. Failure to disclose the requested information may result in denial of registration or in disciplinary proceedings, should you become registered. See 37 CFR §§ 11.7(a)(2)(ii), 11.19, and 11.801."

Answering "YES" does not automatically disqualify you. But not answering truthfully can create problems (even further down the line in your career, should you take the exam, pass, and become a registered patent practitioner; and someone digs into your past).

What questions a prospective quant would face, I don't know; and I won't guess.

Doubt those kinds of questions will be asked of a quant. I've never seen a question asking if I've ever been arrested for anything in my life except when trying to join the military and the FBI. Not that having been arrested would disqualify me. Those were just the only times I've ever been asked whether I've ever been arrested for any reason before. I told an FBI recruiter about my arrest (I wouldn't tell any recruiter, this was for the FBI), and she didn't seem to care about it at all.

My recommendation to OP is to forget about it. It's not even worth stressing over. No one is going to care, and majority of people aren't going to ask. It's not going to hold you back at all.

I was even interviewed for a job that required a top secret security clearance and involved manufacturing nuclear bombs. I had told them about my single arrest and charge before getting the interview.

So, dude, you want to be a quant, not a CIA specialist. No one is going to care about nor are they likely going to try and look for a single arrest on your record. And even if you wanted to be a CIA specialist, I highly doubt they are going to care about a single arrest that didn't lead to a charge. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

You're not a criminal if you make a mistake one time in your friggin life. Criminals are repeat offenders and have a trail of arrests leading up to the present day. No one is going to worry about someone who was arrested one time years ago and has not done anything since.

 

[CrysPhys]

You're not a criminal if you make a mistake one time in your friggin life. Criminals are repeat offenders and have a trail of arrests leading up to the present day. No one is going to worry about someone who was arrested one time years ago and has not done anything since.

<<Emphasis added.>> So you get into a fight with another dude, pull out your gun, blow his brains out, run away, live a clean life for the next X years, and you're not a criminal? Really?

 

[Vanadium 50]

So you get into a fight with another dude, pull out your gun, blow his brains out, run away, live a clean life for the next X years, and you're not a criminal? Really?

That's what Mark Wahlberg seems to think. (OK, he didn't use a gun and just beat the crap out of two men with a stick - for being Asian. But now that he's important, different rules should apply)

But in any event, non-lawyers are still posting legal advice. I can't see how this would help. ("You can't do that! Some strangers on the internet said you couldn't!")

 

[Zap]

<<Emphasis added.>> So you get into a fight with another dude, pull out your gun, blow his brains out, run away, live a clean life for the next X years, and you're not a criminal? Really?

That's the difference between a hardcore felony like manslaughter and a misdemeanor like a DWI or smoking weed. The manslaughter charge is a mistake that will follow you for the rest of your life. Even if you get away with it. The latter will not.

OP probably got arrested for shoplifting or something really dumb but not really a big deal. Shooting someone in the head is not in the same category.

 

[CrysPhys]

That's the difference between a hardcore felony like manslaughter and a misdemeanor like a DWI or smoking weed. The manslaughter charge is a mistake that will follow you for the rest of your life. Even if you get away with it. The latter will not.

OP probably got arrested for shoplifting or something really dumb but not really a big deal. Shooting someone in the head is not in the same category.

Ah, but that's not what you wrote above. You keep asserting very broad generalizations without limiting qualifiers. I gave you one real example (with a citation to the source government document) in which the OP would be questioned about his past act. It's not a job application to the FBI, CIA, or military intelligence; it's not a job application for a position requiring a security clearance; it's not a job application for a position involving handling cash; it's not a job application for a position working with young children. It's not even a job application at all. It's an application to take the USPTO Patent Bar Exam. I don't think in your wildest dreams that you would have imagined finding such a question there; but there it is. Is it a singular exception to your broad generalizations? I don't know. And neither do you.

As I said, I don't know whether the OP's past act will pop up in his quest to become a quant, and I won't hazard a guess. And as I said, if he wants a definitive answer ... he should go see a lawyer. Or, he can choose to save the bucks in the short term, and accept the guesses of you and others. That's his choice. I have nothing further to add.

 

[Zap]

Ah, but that's not what you wrote above. You keep asserting very broad generalizations without limiting qualifiers. I gave you one real example (with a citation to the source government document) in which the OP would be questioned about his past act. It's not a job application to the FBI, CIA, or military intelligence; it's not a job application for a position requiring a security clearance; it's not a job application for a position involving handling cash; it's not a job application for a position working with young children. It's not even a job application at all. It's an application to take the USPTO Patent Bar Exam. I don't think in your wildest dreams that you would have imagined finding such a question there; but there it is. Is it a singular exception to your broad generalizations? I don't know. And neither do you.

As I said, I don't know whether the OP's past act will pop up in his quest to become a quant, and I won't hazard a guess. And as I said, if he wants a definitive answer ... he should go see a lawyer. Or, he can choose to save the bucks in the short term, and accept the guesses of you and others. That's his choice. I have nothing further to add.

I think it's reasonable to assume that OP's offense was not attempted murder or something of that class. I also think it's fair to assume that his single arrest will most likely not come up during any application process, excluding military or those requiring high level security clearances.

If I were OP, I would not worry about the arrest. If an application should ask him about any arrest he has ever had, he should include details regarding his arrest. However, in my experience, those questions are rarely encountered on job applications.Surely, you can find exceptions, but they don't come up very often. I filled out about 20 applications today, and not a single one asked me about my arrest record. In the last few months, I've probably filled out around 300 applications, none of which asked me about my arrest record.

That being said, a background check may be done before the final offer, and it may not be done. My previous job did not run a background check. Whether his arrest will come up during a background check, I don't know. It might and it might not. It also depends on the kind of background check it is. You can do a background check on yourself for a few dollars online. If I do myself, nothing comes up. That was ten years ago, but it was an actual criminal charge.

If I were OP, I would not worry about it and keep working towards my goal. Should the arrest come up during a background check and the employer feels they should disqualify OP for it, then so be it. There's not much you can do about it. I personally think that it won't hold OP back, but that's just my opinion.

These types of questions are more inline with what I typically encounter, and I'm basically a professional job seeker at this point:

Have you ever been convicted of a felony?

Within the last 10 years, have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor?

Me and OP will honestly answer no to both of them. The second one is even a bit more invasive than the majority of applications I see.

 

[Zap]

As fate would have it, I'm the top candidate for a position that will be checking my arrest record over the coarse of my entire life. I'm expecting and offer letter followed by an investigation. I don't believe it's going to disqualify me, but it is a little concerning.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

I think it's reasonable to assume that OP's offense was not attempted murder or something of that class. I also think it's fair to assume that his single arrest will most likely not come up during any application process, excluding military or those requiring high level security clearances.

If I were OP, I would not worry about the arrest. If an application should ask him about any arrest he has ever had, he should include details regarding his arrest.

It’s more reasonable to presume, as I did, that the OP may be worried so much because it concerned a monetary theft or fraud of that nature.

If that is the case, then it doesn’t matter if charges were dropped. That could come back on someone working in this area. People talk. You never know.

 

[Zap]

Good point. However, OP did not give enough information.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Good point. However, OP did not give enough information.

This situation is either:

1. OP’s refusal to see a lawyer on it implies that they already know the answer. They couldn’t get past the application process. I can get presumptuous on the charges here.

or

2. OP cannot even research or inquire on a single general problem themselves. Wouldn’t a quant be dealing with hundreds of these sorts of tasks during schooling? Then, thereafter being hired as a quant dealing with problems where it takes more effort daily. Could they even do the job, if they can’t even research or inquire a professional on this matter?

There are plenty of forums for legal advice. You can get a response from a lawyer for free on the web. You can even pay them a few dollars (and maybe on this topic). And many lawyers give first consultations for free. This isn’t much effort for a person wanting to be in such a demanding field.

 

[Zap]

Here's something I ran into:

In most cases, a consumer reporting agency may not report negative information that is more than seven years old, or bankruptcies that are more than 10 years old.

So, there is such a thing as "outdated negative information."

 

[Vanadium 50]

That's very relevant if the OP is applying for a credit card.

 

[CrysPhys]

Here's something I ran into:
So, there is such a thing as "outdated negative information."

I don't think anyone here claimed otherwise. But the criteria for what is considered "negative information" and the criteria for what is considered "outdated" are highly dependent both on what you are applying for and on whom you are applying to. That's a concept you can't seem to grasp, for some bizarre reason; rather, you keep pushing, "Well, I've never come across this problem; so no one else should either."

ETA: Here's another question on the application to take the USPTO Patent Bar Exam:

"Have you ever been disciplined, reprimanded, suspended, expelled, or asked to resign or withdraw from any educational institution, or have you resigned or withdrawn from any such institution in time to avoid a request to resign or in time to avoid discipline, reprimand, suspension, or expulsion for conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit?"

So, if you were caught cheating on an exam in third grade, you're supposed to answer, "Yes".

And yet another:

"Are you delinquent on any State or Federal debt? (Include delinquencies arising from Federal or State taxes, loans, overpayment of benefits, and other debts to the U.S. Government and defaults on Federally guaranteed or insured loans such as student and home mortgage loans.)"

So, if you are skipping out on your student loans from twenty years ago, you're supposed to answer, "Yes."

 

[Zap]

I think the "outdated" negative information applied to arrests and convictions, as well, unless I misread something in the document. I'm not really pushing anything here, just offering my own experience and opinion.

 

[CrysPhys]

I think the "outdated" negative information applied to arrests and convictions, as well, unless I misread something in the document.

But that document [as far as we can glean from the fragment you quoted] specifically applies to a "consumer reporting agency" (however that's defined) as a source of background information for an applicant. There are, of course, a myriad of other sources, which are subject to different rules. And, in some scenarios, a key source is ... the applicant himself.

 

[CrysPhys]

I'm not really pushing anything here, just offering my own experience and opinion.

So far, there have been roughly three responses to the OP's inquiry:

(1) "Consult with an attorney." This is the definitive answer. But the OP obviously wants to avoid paying legal fees, and is fishing for responses that will give him enough confidence to avoid consulting with an attorney.

(2) "You're probably OK, I guess." This is free advice. But doesn't inspire much confidence, does it? Really not persuasive enough to convince the OP to avoid consulting with an attorney. Not likely harmful.

(3) "No need for an attorney! Don't worry! Don't even give it a second thought! Believe me! Been there! Done that! No negative consequences whatsoever! No problemo!" This is free advice. Asserted with self-confident, self-assured, forceful conviction. [And when someone brings up counter-examples, and cautions, "Whoa! Hold on there! Each scenario is different, and there are many variables involved.", you double-down.] Prima facie persuasive to the unwary, especially to someone who's eager to be persuaded. Potentially harmful.

Again, it's the OP's choice. Since we haven't heard back from him, I'm not even sure he's still following. But I've chimed back in for the benefit of other readers, seeking similar advice, who find this thread.

 

[Zap]

Just curious, but the attorney is going to tell OP whether he can or cannot become a quant?

 

[mathwonk]

I was a college professor and did lots of hiring and applying for jobs myself. I cannot remember being asked or asking anyone about an arrest record, especially not one for which some one was not convicted. I have seen other questionable and intrusive questions, such as whether you were a member of the "Communist Party", when being hired at a public school in some US states such as Georgia. Even in those cases the hiring unit was so embarrassed by such questions that they would extend the offer first, and conceal the need to answer the intrusive question until the hire showed up to sign the contract. This question was somewhat pointless since in some countries the official "Communist" party has a different name, e.g. it was the Socialist Unity Party some years ago in East Germany, and membership in that organ thus posed no hindrance to being hired. In fact membership in the Party conveyed little information since it was essentially required.

The OP's main concern, in my opinion, is achieving a level of competence and expertise commensurate with being hirable. But he seems to have abandoned this thread.

I am showing my age, but does this thread remind anyone else of the title song on Arlo Guthrie's 1967 album "Alice's Restaurant"? ("Kid, .. have you ever been arrested?")

 

[CrysPhys]

Just curious, but the attorney is going to tell OP whether he can or cannot become a quant?

You've posed the issue too simplistically. The role of the attorney would be to evaluate what negative impact (if any) the OP's previous arrest might have on his pursuit of a career as a quant. Towards that end:

(1) The attorney would first discuss with the OP the details of his arrest (e.g., reason for the arrest, where and when it happened, age of the OP when it happened ...) and the details of the outcome of the arrest (e.g., terms and conditions of the expungement).

These are details that should not be discussed on an open forum. I am a member of an intellectual property law forum; and we always caution posters not to divulge specific details of their individual cases. And attorneys on the forum always caution that their posts do not constitute legal advice: If posters want specific legal advice, they should consult with their own attorneys.

Posters in this forum have resorted to speculation about what the details of the OP's case might be. That is a totally worthless exercise.

(2) Once the attorney has established the specific facts concerning the OP's previous arrest and outcome, he would then evaluate the scope of career opportunities as a quant; in particular, whether any additional special credentials beyond educational degrees (e.g., certifications, licenses, registrations, or security clearances) are required. As one example in another field, you can pursue many engineering positions without any additional special credentials; but, for certain positions, you need to be a licensed professional engineer; and, for certain other positions, you need a security clearance. As another example, you can pursue a career in intellectual property law as a technical specialist without any additional special credentials; but, for other positions, you need to be a patent agent with a registration from the USPTO or a patent attorney with a registration from the USPTO and a license from a state bar.

If additional special credentials are required, the attorney will determine whether the issue of the prior arrest will arise during the process of obtaining those credentials [in previous posts, I have brought up the example of obtaining USPTO registration to practice as a patent agent or patent attorney]; and, if so, what the likely impact will be (based on previous instances and on discussions with appropriate officials).

If additional special credentials are not required, the attorney would likely research job applications and hold discussions with hiring managers to determine hiring norms and then determine whether the OP's prior arrest would need to be disclosed; and, if so, what the likely impact would be.

 

[CrysPhys]

I was a college professor and did lots of hiring and applying for jobs myself. I cannot remember being asked or asking anyone about an arrest record, especially not one for which some one was not convicted. ...

Now you sound like Zap. Were any of the jobs that you applied for, or did hiring for, specifically in the quant field? I still don't understand people who post, "Well, I've interviewed for X1, X2, ... XN (where X1, X2, ... XN are jobs not in the quant field), and I've never been asked about an arrest record. Ergo, you, OP, should not be concerned about being asked about your arrest record when you apply for a job as a quant." Huh?

Well, I've worked in three major careers: R&D physicist, telcom systems engineer, and patent agent. For R&D physicist and telcom systems engineer, I was never asked about arrests. For patent agent, as I have previously discussed, the application merely to take the USPTO Patent Bar Exam asks about arrests, and other personal issues, such as being disciplined for cheating on an exam in school. I'll ask you the same question I asked Zap: "Would you have ever imagined in your wildest dreams such questions being asked?" But as I cautioned, I will not extrapolate whether such questions would be asked of a candidate for quant (since that's not my field); at the same time, I would not dismiss the possibility based solely on my experiences as a physicist and engineer.

Now, if someone here posts, "I've worked as a quant in a variety of positions; here's what I've found ...", or "I've been a director at several major financial firms; I've hired twenty quants in a variety of positions; and here are my hiring criteria ...", that would be a different story.

 

[mathwonk]

I am not sure I understand you. Are you trying to help the OP, or just argue that I myself have nothing to offer him and should keep my mouth shut? In the latter case, you would not be the first.

 

[Office_Shredder]

.
Now, if someone here posts, "I've worked as a quant in a variety of positions; here's what I've found ...", or "I've been a director at several major financial firms; I've hired twenty quants in a variety of positions; and here are my hiring criteria ...", that would be a different story.

I work as a quant, and I think he's probably fine. I also think it's easier and more accurate to get the answer to this question by just applying for some jobs instead of asking an attorney for help.

 

[CrysPhys]

I am not sure I understand you. Are you trying to help the OP, or just argue that I myself have nothing to offer him and should keep my mouth shut? In the latter case, you would not be the first.

I'm trying to help the OP (and, more broadly, others in a similar circumstance who come across this thread). This is an instance in which bad information (or, at the very least, unsubstantiated information) has the potential for harm. If the OP receives no answers (or, at most, "We don't know."), he's no better and no worse off; he needs to dig further. But if he receives enough answers along the lines of, "I've (applied for jobs as, worked as, hired people as) [college professor, software programmer, rocket scientist, hamburger flipper ... (but not including quant)], and the issue of arrests has never come up; therefore, it won't be a problem for you. Don't worry about it!", then the OP runs the risk of being reassured by all these answers and not pursuing the issue further.

Now suppose the OP had asked about a position as "patent agent" instead of "quant". In the absence of informed responses from berned_you or CrysPhys, the OP would have received exactly the same answers along the lines of, "I've (applied for jobs as, worked as, hired people as) [college professor, software programmer, rocket scientist, hamburger flipper ... (but not including patent agent)], and the issue of arrests has never come up; therefore, it won't be a problem for you. Don't worry about it!" So the OP feels reassured, doesn't worry about it, spends X time and $Y preparing for a career as a patent agent.

Then, surprise, surprise, he applies to take the USPTO Patent Bar Exam; and, right there in the application are a series of questions concerning his moral character and reputation, including a question about prior arrests. And, as they are fond of saying in TV sales pitches, ... But wait! There's more! Suppose he is allowed to sit for the exam, and suppose he does, in fact, pass the exam. He's home free, right? No, he is not immediately granted registration to practice as a patent agent.

His name and address are published in the Official Gazette of the USPTO, Registration to Practice Notices (https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-...k-practitioners/registration-practice-notices). There is a 45-day hold period during which anyone can submit a letter to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) of the USPTO showing good cause why the applicant for registration lacks good moral character and reputation. Unlikely? Perhaps. Impossible? No. Here's the case of an applicant who was denied registration because his university reported him for research misconduct (essentially fudging data) while he was a grad student (and also later as a postdoc): see
https://www.oedethicslaw.com/post/the-basics-of-moral-character-evaluations-by-oed
; scroll down to the section with the heading Information from Other Sources; contained within is a link to download the original OED decision for those who are interested.

 

[CrysPhys]

I work as a quant, and I think he's probably fine. I also think it's easier and more accurate to get the answer to this question by just applying for some jobs instead of asking an attorney for help.

Well, at least you are a quant.

I previously answered:

To: OP. A key piece of missing info is how far along are you in the route preparing to becoming a quant?

At one extreme, if you've already committed X years and are near the end of the route, and are only now asking whether some incident in your past will bar you from employment as a quant, well, the question is rather moot, isn't it? You might as well just apply, and see if you qualify or not.

On the other extreme, if you are just starting out on a program that will take X years to complete, and you have this nagging worry at the back of your mind that some incident in your past will cause that X years to have been in vain, then it's certainly worthwhile to consult an attorney in advance, isn't it? Do you really want to depend on random people posting, "You're probably OK, I guess." [even, if they assert with forceful conviction, "Yes, I'm certain that you're probably OK, I guess." ]? And suppose, hypothetically, someone does post, "Oh, I too was arrested for a crime, was not convicted, and got my record expunged. And, yipee, I was hired as a quant. [Or, alternatively, crap, I was barred from being hired as a quant.]"? Can you generalize that poster's scenario to your own, given all the variables that could come into play?

So, yes, I agree: If the OP has already put in the time and spent the $ to prepare for a career as a quant, then he should simply apply for jobs and see what happens. Nothing to lose at this point.

But how would you advise someone who's at the start of the journey, someone who's planning to spend X time and $Y preparing for a career as a quant?

[ETA: Your previous reply was a bit uncertain:

My rough understanding is if you are an employee for a stock broker, you cannot have committed a felony in the last ten years, or certain kinds of misdemeanors. I don't think an arrest is disqualifying. You usually don't have to disclose being arrested during the interview process I think, don't they only ask about felonies (and some states don't even allow that). So I guess the answer is, probably? Not all quants even work for a broker dealer, at which point it's just like getting any other job.

]

I'd also be interested in the following. Are there quants who get directly involved with the investment portfolios of specific clients (rather than, say, broader investment strategies)? Professions such as patent agent and patent attorney (or attorneys in general) have higher ethical standards than others because, at least in part, they act on behalf of clients; in particular, they are supposed to act in the best interests of their clients.

 

[Office_Shredder]

So, yes, I agree: If the OP has already put in the time and spent the $ to prepare for a career as a quant, then he should simply apply for jobs and see what happens. Nothing to lose at this point.

But how would you advise someone who's at the start of the journey, someone who's planning to spend X time and $Y preparing for a career as a quant?

What's the definition of start of the journey? You can apply for internship as a freshman in college. There's also not much difference in what you should do at college if you want to become a quant vs do ai at Facebook or becoming a data analyst for Ford. If you want to abandon the track unless you get the quant job, I would mostly recommend you just not start it in the first place.

I'd also be interested in the following. Are there quants who get directly involved with the investment portfolios of specific clients (rather than, say, broader investment strategies)? Professions such as patent agent and patent attorney (or attorneys in general) have higher ethical standards than others because they act on behalf of clients; in particular, they are supposed to act in the best interests of their clients.

Sometimes. But finra's rule for being disqualified to work at a finra regulated institution (which I think not all quant jobs even entail) it's being convicted of a felony or certain fraud related misdemeanors in the last ten years

https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/guidance/eligibility-requirements

 

[Vanadium 50]

But how would you advise someone who's at the start of the journey

Which is where the OP is. He's in junior college, and as a year ago, hadn't even taken trig. He has a long road ahead of him.

Are there quants who get directly involved with the investment portfolios of specific clients (rather than, say, broader investment strategies)?

That is a good question. Another question is what the career path is. I can easily imagine moving up the supervisory path and supervising such people, or supervising people who need to be bonded, or both. Professional advice would make it clear what, if any, restrictions there might be, now and down the road.