- #36
Zap
- 406
- 120
I think the "outdated" negative information applied to arrests and convictions, as well, unless I misread something in the document.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.
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 the applicant himself.Zap said:I think the "outdated" negative information applied to arrests and convictions, as well, unless I misread something in the document.
So far, there have been roughly three responses to the OP's inquiry:Zap said:I'm not really pushing anything here, just offering my own experience and opinion.
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:Zap said:Just curious, but the attorney is going to tell OP whether he can or cannot become a quant?
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?mathwonk said: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. ...
CrysPhys said:.
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'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.mathwonk said: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.
Well, at least you are a quant.Office_Shredder said: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 said: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?
]Office_Shredder said: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.
CrysPhys said: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?
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.
CrysPhys said:But how would you advise someone who's at the start of the journey
CrysPhys said:Are there quants who get directly involved with the investment portfolios of specific clients (rather than, say, broader investment strategies)?