Engineering Why don't more engineers/scientists go into finance

[astonmartin]

Anyone attending or graduated from an Ivy League or similar caliber school has probably seen tons of undergrads going to work at firms like Morgan Stanley, Blackstone, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc. These places pay first year analysts about $100K after bonus, second years about $150K, and third years (if they stay on) over $200k. After a decade or so you're easily pulling in high six figures (500k+) salaries that most engineers could only dream of. The numbers are even more ridiculous if you go into private equity or hedge funds. And this is after the whole financial crisis.

I'm sure the average STEM major is much smarter than the average investment banker or trader, so why do people still try to break into the lower paying engineering jobs when they could easily be making six figures on Wall st (AVERAGE compensation/employee at goldman is around $400k, at Google it's just over $100k...and Goldman isn't even close to being among the highest paying finance institutions.)

Which I guess also begs the question of why do engineering jobs pay so little compared to high finance?

 

[Mmm_Pasta]

Some people don't see the need of making a high six-figure salary when they could be doing something they like to do. Some people from a STEM background do end up in finance.

 

[dcpo]

I don't know what the situation is like in the US, but I did my undergrad in mathematics at Oxford in the uk, and I know that the mathematicians and physical scientists were heavily targeted by Goldman etc. I'd go as far as saying that I suspect that the average investment banker probably is the equivalent of a STEM major, at least the British ones.

Also, though many of the high flyers from my course negotiated high starting salaries for themselves (noting that this was 2006/7), they were expected to work for it. It's not like people go into investment banks on big salaries and do a 9-5, judging by my acquaintances they were expected to work 10-14 hour days, and come in frequently on the weekend.

As for why they get paid so much, well, I guess when so much money is flying around it's hardly surprising when a lot of it ends up in people's pockets.

 

[DeadOriginal]

It is true that the salaries are high. It is also true that most of the people doing this are those that are from ivy league schools. The problem is most people aren't from ivy league schools.

Another problem is that a lot of people study STEM majors to become scientists. They stick with these majors which are arguably the hardest majors because they enjoy it. I would like to think that I am no stalker but I do admit that I have been following Twofish-quant's posts more often than I probably should be. From his general posts, I gather that he would be willing to dump the high paying finance job without ever looking back if a tenure position in physics opened up for him.

Now finance pays high because like what I said above and from what you can see, most of the people that work there did not study finance. A lot never even thought they would end up in finance. To keep these people in their jobs, banks need to pay high salaries to keep them interested.


That is not to say... I am not interested of course.

 

[sponsoredwalk]

Because it's soulless?

 

[TMFKAN64]

Because it's soulless?

And boring.

(I've done it too. I worked for a hedge fund for two years. Yes, the pay is great, but damn, please pass the sharp stick...)

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm sure the average STEM major is much smarter than the average investment banker or trader, so why do people still try to break into the lower paying engineering jobs when they could easily be making six figures on Wall st (AVERAGE compensation/employee at goldman is around $400k, at Google it's just over $100k...and Goldman isn't even close to being among the highest paying finance institutions.)

1) Because you have to move to NYC

2) Once you take into account all of the differences, the salaries aren't that great. NYC has 45% marginal tax rates, and everything is extremely expensive (especially rent). Once you take those into account, the compensation is only someone better than high end engineering, and if you hate NYC, then you are better off taking an engineering job.

3) "Reflexivity". Salaries are high because no one wants the job. Once everyone wants the jobs, salaries go down.

4) Average salaries are misleading. If you are a science geek, you'll go into technology. The technical people make less money than the deal makers.

Which I guess also begs the question of why do engineering jobs pay so little compared to high finance?

1) They don't.
2) Any difference is because of the fact that people that manage the money, get the money.

 

[twofish-quant]

It is true that the salaries are high. It is also true that most of the people doing this are those that are from ivy league schools. The problem is most people aren't from ivy league schools.

For physics Ph.D.'s, this isn't an issue. Because finance is a second choice for physics Ph.D.'s, the schools that physics Ph.D.s on Wall Street come from tend to be the large public state schools, although MIT is high represented. It's odd that you'll see the place crawlling with MBA from Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia, but hardly any science Ph.D.'s from those places.

Another problem is that a lot of people study STEM majors to become scientists.

And some people go into finance because that's the closest thing out there to science. If you work as a technical geek at a bank, you will be doing technical work. Conversely google and Microsoft also hire MBA's.

From his general posts, I gather that he would be willing to dump the high paying finance job without ever looking back if a tenure position in physics opened up for him.

Sure, but one reason I got into finance was that it's very, very mathematical. Also there is less of a glass ceiling in finance than in other fields.

Also, the money is good, but I'm trying to make a ton of money so that I can retire early and get back to astrophysics.

Now finance pays high because like what I said above and from what you can see, most of the people that work there did not study finance. A lot never even thought they would end up in finance.

And one thing that you learn is that 80% of what's in a finance textbook is either wrong or irrelevant. One reason that finance oddly needs more physics researchers than physics is that the laws of physics do not change over time. The laws of finance do (and sometimes literally).

 

[twofish-quant]

After a decade or so you're easily pulling in high six figures (500k+) salaries that most engineers could only dream of.

Maybe. Or it could be that you end up with too many finance people and the economy collapses before you get your jackpot. On the other hand maybe it doesn't matter. If the world economy collapses (again), I'll at least be at the center of action.

A lot also depends on where you are and what you do. I've *never* been bored. I've been angry, frustrated, depressed, ecstatic, terrified, and every combination of the above, but
I've never been bored.

 

[Rika]

I'm sure the average STEM major is much smarter than the average investment banker or trader

What makes you so sure?

It's arrogance to think like that. For me engineering is quite easy comparing to let's say medicine.

so why do people still try to break into the lower paying engineering jobs when they could easily be making six figures on Wall st (AVERAGE compensation/employee at goldman is around $400k, at Google it's just over $100k...and Goldman isn't even close to being among the highest paying finance institutions.)

Because money is not everything and purpose of higher education isn't to make more money. Well you really don't need colleage degree to make money.

More or less if you study engineering you want to do engineering. If you want to do finance, you study finance.

Which I guess also begs the question of why do engineering jobs pay so little compared to high finance?

I don't agree that finance is boring. There are many people that see finance as their primary goal. Finance is a field close to money so it's obvious that it's rich field that pays well. Main purpose of finance field is to use your knowledge to hack economy and make money because of that (and I can't understand why do you think that this knowledge is easier to obtain that knwoledge about car building or paricle physics. After all you have much more engineers/particle physicists than rich people in this world) If you can't make money with finance it's fail. It's like you can't build a car with engineering.

 

[Locrian]

It appears to me most people are using the term "finance" as a substitute for some imaginary investment bank job. There are lots of other jobs in finance. Most of them suck.

I've met plenty of underwriters who work in finance and make 2/3 of what the median EE makes. Most people in finance don't make that much money. That's the reason most engineers don't go into finance.

 

[twofish-quant]

It appears to me most people are using the term "finance" as a substitute for some imaginary investment bank job. There are lots of other jobs in finance. Most of them suck.

One other factor is that finance is non-unionized, rather secretive, and often concentrated in a few cities.

If you talk about General Motors, then you see people that work for GM that aren't high level executives, so that you realize that most people that work for GM are not executives. If you talk about a major bank, the only people you see talking are executives, which gives the misleading impression that *only* executives work there.

I've met plenty of underwriters who work in finance and make 2/3 of what the median EE makes. Most people in finance don't make that much money. That's the reason most engineers don't go into finance.

Also a lot of the connection between finance and physics has to do with the fact that banks hire theoretical physicists, but the numbers are tiny. A mega-bank has maybe 200,000 employees of which about maybe a few hundred jobs at most have anything to do with theoretical physics. However given that the US graduates about 1000 physics Ph.D.'s each year, those jobs turn out to be really important.

 

[Floid]

Because I see the focal point of our economy trying to figure out how to buy X at price Y and resale it at Z without adding any value into the equations as a bad thing.

I therefore don't really have a desire to participate. I also enjoy what I do and don't want to live in NYC.

 

[npc]

And boring.

(I've done it too. I worked for a hedge fund for two years. Yes, the pay is great, but damn, please pass the sharp stick...)

Yes it is soulless, but it is not that boring, especially at the moment with all that is going on in the world. But there are different types of not boring, it is not boring in the sense that it is a fairly dynamic field which can have fundamental changes in thinking every couple of years. More then enough to keep people busy.

But being not borning is not the same as saying it is interesting, fulfilling work

 

[npc]

3) "Reflexivity". Salaries are high because no one wants the job. Once everyone wants the jobs, salaries go down.

Don't believe it's a case of no one wants the job, think it is quite the opposite (even from looking at the interst in quant work on these forums), there are plenty of people who want the job, all attracted by the salaries, but these are not always the people you want to hire.

 

[npc]

I'm sure the average STEM major is much smarter than the average investment banker or trader,

I'd be very careful with this statement, investment banking and trading attracts some very intelligent people. Also, there are major banks that will not allow traders near any deals until they can fully explain their trades in mathematical terms including valuations on the deals. also, there would be a reasonable number of quants who get fed up with the work and head into trading, not because the job is more interesting, but because the rewards are even better then quant work.

 

[Rika]

What do you mean by soulless and why do you think that?

 

[Locrian]

What do you mean by soulless and why do you think that?

Isn’t it obvious?

When you sit in a cubicle and pursue useless patents your company uses to clear the field of startups and maintain market control, it’s soulful.

When you sit in a cubicle and ensure that enough capital is set aside to pay an insured’s life insurance benefit to their family, it’s soulless.

The first produces a valuable benefit for society. The second is just pushing money around and has no value at all.

 

[Rika]

Isn’t it obvious?

When you sit in a cubicle and pursue useless patents your company uses to clear the field of startups and maintain market control, it’s soulful.

When you sit in a cubicle and ensure that enough capital is set aside to pay an insured’s life insurance benefit to their family, it’s soulless.

The first produces a valuable benefit for society. The second is just pushing money around and has no value at all.

That's what I thought :D

5/5 for this post <3

 

[twofish-quant]

Because I see the focal point of our economy trying to figure out how to buy X at price Y and resale it at Z without adding any value into the equations as a bad thing.

One problem is that if people that care about "fundamental value" don't go into finance, then you have a bad selection effect in which major decisions about the world economy are made by people that don't care about the implications of those decisions, which will cause the system to come crashing down.

One thing that I like about my job was that I played a small role in "saving the world from total economic collapse" in 2007-8, and I get a good feeling in doing my job well, because you just need to turn on the news to see the bad things that can happen when the job gets done badly.

 

[npc]

Isn’t it obvious?

When you sit in a cubicle and pursue useless patents your company uses to clear the field of startups and maintain market control, it’s soulful.

When you sit in a cubicle and ensure that enough capital is set aside to pay an insured’s life insurance benefit to their family, it’s soulless.

The first produces a valuable benefit for society. The second is just pushing money around and has no value at all.

I mean it in the sense that most people will do science/eng out of a love for the subject matter and fulfilment in finding things out, I don't believe most people will get that from finance having come from science, if you did then you should go and study finance not science in the first place.

YOu seem to view it as a question of morality or right/wrongs of a particular job, no matter what job you give an example of, you will find an example of right and wrong use of that job.

 

[Arjani]

I don't know of anyone who went into physics to have a career in finance.

 

[twofish-quant]

I mean it in the sense that most people will do science/eng out of a love for the subject matter and fulfilment in finding things out, I don't believe most people will get that from finance having come from science

Some do. :-) :-)

You seem to view it as a question of morality or right/wrongs of a particular job, no matter what job you give an example of, you will find an example of right and wrong use of that job.

I don't think that people in finance are more or less amoral than people in other fields. I do think that finance has a bigger impact on the world so that any amorality in finance has a much larger impact than those in other fields.

 

[npc]

I don't know of anyone who went into physics to have a career in finance.

I don't know anyone who had that intent either, but still a hell of a lot of ex-physics people in finance, and this will continue to be so long as there are no other real physics jobs out there.

 

[npc]

Some do. :-) :-)

There's always one! :-)

I don't think that people in finance are more or less amoral than people in other fields. I do think that finance has a bigger impact on the world so that any amorality in finance has a much larger impact than those in other fields.

Don't think it's necessarily the people who are amoral, but the results of their work can be (whether those results are intended or not). I do agree that the impact of actions in finance can have huge repercussions around the world.

 

[mal4mac]

I don't think that people in finance are more or less amoral than people in other fields.

I disagree. Can you point to a Bernie Madoff of physics? There are many finance people in prison for fiddling the accounts. Are there any physicists in prison for fiddling physical laws?

 

[Nano-Passion]

Because to some of us, life doesn't revolve around money. One's priority might be to quench his curiosity and do research, as it is for me. Personally, I wouldn't be able to stand working solely for money as my life would feel very superficial. Money is a material (or not so material in fact) item, there is no point in basing your life around it. I think it makes us economic slaves. Which brings me back to the point that I do what quenches my curiosity, that way, I feel that I beat the social and economic system that oppresses everyone.

 

[Mute]

I disagree. Can you point to a Bernie Madoff of physics? There are many finance people in prison for fiddling the accounts. Are there any physicists in prison for fiddling physical laws?

Schön scandal, Bogdanov Affair, Emil Rupp?

Sure, maybe they didn't end up in prison, but fabricating results to intentionally mislead people, resulting in a plethora of people wasting time and money trying to reproduce the results, isn't exactly a moral high ground.

Because to some of us, life doesn't revolve around money. One's priority might be to quench his curiosity and do research, as it is for me. Personally, I wouldn't be able to stand working solely for money as my life would feel very superficial. Money is a material (or not so material in fact) item, there is no point in basing your life around it. I think it makes us economic slaves. Which brings me back to the point that I do what quenches my curiosity, that way, I feel that I beat the social and economic system that oppresses everyone.

On the other hand, many people (even here) think that prioritizing the quest to quench one's curiosity results in one becoming an academic slave, trapped in a different kind of system which oppresses people. (Granted, if you beat the odds and become a prof, you're the one that gets to do the oppressing, but you're still liable to be a slave to funding agencies). So, as some people figure, if they can do work that earns them lots of money and is still somehow interesting, maybe it's not so bad being an 'economic slave'. (And still others try to get the best (and worst) of both worlds by going to national research labs or R&D in companies).

 

[Nano-Passion]

On the other hand, many people (even here) think that prioritizing the quest to quench one's curiosity results in one becoming an academic slave, trapped in a different kind of system which oppresses people. (Granted, if you beat the odds and become a prof, you're the one that gets to do the oppressing, but you're still liable to be a slave to funding agencies). So, as some people figure, if they can do work that earns them lots of money and is still somehow interesting, maybe it's not so bad being an 'economic slave'. (And still others try to get the best (and worst) of both worlds by going to national research labs or R&D in companies).

It's a risk worth taking. And whatever it may be, I much rather make a living with an intellectually stimulating or challenging job (hopefully research) than the run-of-the mill 9-5 job.

Reflecting on what others may be interested in, what matters most is that you don't work solely for money, but make it your mission to do what your passionate about. But if you don't have a passion towards anything, then you will have to be oppressed by the financial system.

On second thought, we are all more or less under the whim of the work-force. What matters though, is whether your job feels like a hobby or a struggle.

I choose a job that is a hobby. That way, I feel that I beat the system--and I get paid to have fun (to an extent of course).

 

[phylotree]

If I have a choice to make, I would always want to be a manager. So don't ask me if I want to be one or what I want to be. But when I have no alternative, whatever earns me a good living, then I suppose to accept it albeit unenthusiastically; since I will look out for another better job while still clinging the current one. Finance or not Finance, that is not necessarily a destiny, only a choice's result that will be changed sooner or later.

 

[twofish-quant]

I disagree. Can you point to a Bernie Madoff of physics? There are many finance people in prison for fiddling the accounts. Are there any physicists in prison for fiddling physical laws?

Mute mentioned them. There's also Victor Ninov

Now you can argue that fiddling with paper results causes a lot less social damage than fiddling with peoples accounts, and I agree.

Also, the really big damage is usually done by people that are doing things legally. It's in fact very difficult to do something illegal in finance because you have a dozen lawyers tracking everything you do.

The other things is that you can do things without malice, but still screw up the world.

 

[gravenewworld]

Just what we need, more of our brightest minds being turned into white collar criminals that continue to drive this economy into the ground. Soulless indeed.

 

[Mute]

It's a risk worth taking. And whatever it may be, I much rather make a living with an intellectually stimulating or challenging job (hopefully research) than the run-of-the mill 9-5 job.

Reflecting on what others may be interested in, what matters most is that you don't work solely for money, but make it your mission to do what your passionate about. But if you don't have a passion towards anything, then you will have to be oppressed by the financial system.

On second thought, we are all more or less under the whim of the work-force. What matters though, is whether your job feels like a hobby or a struggle.

I choose a job that is a hobby. That way, I feel that I beat the system--and I get paid to have fun (to an extent of course).

If you have a choice, that is. Not everyone is willing to keep postdoc-hopping (or adjuncting) in order to keep doing research while trying to get that coveted faculty job. There are options in industry, but those are harder to come across for theorists, so what does a theorist do if they want to keep doing research? Ironically, financial institutions are perhaps one of the few kinds of places where somewhat theoretical physics-like research gets done outside of academia. I am seriously considering finance jobs for the very reason that my research deals a lot with random, noisy, non-equilibrium systems, and a finance job might just be the kind of place I could keep doing the kind of research I like doing.

Furthermore, although I also don't want a "run of the mill" 9-to-5 job, an intellectually stimulating 9-to-5 job is looking pretty attractive these days. It's nice to be able to leave work at work, even if it is fun work. Otherwise, when it's not going well, your hobby feels less like a hobby and more like a job.

Just what we need, more of our brightest minds being turned into white collar criminals that continue to drive this economy into the ground. Soulless indeed.

What about the bright minds trying to understand risk and rare events better so that the economy doesn't crash into the ground?

 

[Cbray]

Guys! Let's all do science and engineering because we love it, then after years of hard study and fun we can take a crap on its face and sell our souls for plastic! OMG THAT SOUNDS BRILLIANTTTTTTTTTT!

 

[ParticleGrl]

Guys! Let's all do science and engineering because we love it, then after years of hard study and fun we can take a crap on its face and sell our souls for plastic! OMG THAT SOUNDS BRILLIANTTTTTTTTTT!

Here is the deal- for lots of people I know who got phds in physics, after their phd they discovered that there aren't many jobs for scientists. After months and months and months of looking for science or engineering work we started branching out in our job search and found out that finance, insurance, programming, consulting actually WANT us.

The only downside is that we have to deal with the mindset that comes from doing a phd. Taking the job that wants you isn't selling out- its going with the flow of life. Of course, having people like you say that its 'selling our souls for plastic' just compounds the problem. Basically, before you call something selling out, you should take a peak at the actual people making the decision.

 

[koab1mjr]

I think for some of the banking jobs need to factor in the quality of life

A) you work a ton of hours
B) forced scalability of expenses if you are making 500K you need to look it which cost quite a bit
C) going with the flow is joining the problem
D) Because of A you are a one dimensional human being

this is my gripe with the country is that environment for scientist is so poor and is beginning to show in numerious aspects

and fiannce work is souless. Making money, just to make money is the definition of souless. The concept of Wall Street and the finance industry has been perverted to a shell game, where banks play hot potato and swindle out transaction fees and the Market burdens companies with an insatiable demand for profits.

shame

 

[Mr.Fermion]

A) you work a ton of hours
shame

How much do you think a physics ph.d works...? I am finishing up my ph.d and have worked 60-80 hours consistently I have had to work almost every weekend for the last 7 years. Furthermore, if I wanted to go on and be a post doc, I would likely have to work the same amount of time, and then work even more if I somehow manage to get a tenure track position.

C) going with the flow is joining the problem
shame

What would you have the physics ph.d do ? There are more physics ph.d's than there are academic jobs for them, I mean I guess you could be a career post doc, but what about having a family? Saving money for retirement ? Being able to afford more than a 1 bedroom apartment? Its very difficult to attain these things and experience different aspects of life if you have to constantly be moving from place to place.

D) Because of A you are a one dimensional human being
shame

I would argue that if you dedicate your life to science while ignoring all other aspects of life, that it makes you more one dimensional than going into a "soul less" job. Because in the end all you will know is how to be a scientist and nothing else. For me personally that's not enough, for some people it is.

 

[koab1mjr]

How much do you think a physics ph.d works...? I am finishing up my ph.d and have worked 60-80 hours consistently I have had to work almost every weekend for the last 7 years. Furthermore, if I wanted to go on and be a post doc, I would likely have to work the same amount of time, and then work even more if I somehow manage to get a tenure track position. .

I was speaking more from the engineering standpoint. Where I am 60hrs represents more of an upperbound. I have sat in labs with post docs I am well aware of their plight and its BS.

What would you have the physics ph.d do ? There are more physics ph.d's than there are academic jobs for them, I mean I guess you could be a career post doc, but what about having a family? Saving money for retirement ? Being able to afford more than a 1 bedroom apartment? Its very difficult to attain these things and experience different aspects of life if you have to constantly be moving from place to place. .

Again see above, but is doing something completely unreleated for money really an answer? Again this is a systemic problem. We do not need more people on wall street. Money won't make you happy any. I know many people in the field some of the most unbalanced individuals you will ever see. Life of extremes though I cannot speak for traders and quants etc.. speaking about sell side IBD which is subset of the industry as a whole. You are switch one set of problems for another.

I would argue that if you dedicate your life to science while ignoring all other aspects of life, that it makes you more one dimensional than going into a "soul less" job. Because in the end all you will know is how to be a scientist and nothing else. For me personally that's not enough, for some people it is.

Not advocating going to the mountains and setting up a lab, but comparing a person 100% dedicated to science vs a person 100% dedicated to making this piece of paper with ink on it is a no brainer. I just find many people cling to this framework of a massing wealth. Try to find happiness intrinsically and you will find you do not need all that much.

I guess I am not materilistic. I came from finance hated it so I have a biased viewpoint I guess

 

[Shaun_W]

Why I didn't want to go into investment banking, which I assume that the OP means by "finance" given the salaries listed, as a mechanical engineering student from the UK:

1) I'd need to move to London. I hate that place.

2) I'd need to work long hours. I have other interests and would hate for my work to have to completely dominate my life. I'd probably burn out after the first year to be honest...

3) It is of absolutely no interest to me.

4) And even if the first three points were to not apply, I would never get into investment banking anyway since it is the most competitive career to enter and my university is not nearly prestigious enough. My high school grades also are not likely high enough to pass through the autofilters either. So it's a closed door to me anyway.

 

[Rika]

This thread is funny. Phd won't help much as you are blind even if you do science.

It's funny because those who do science think they are smarter than other people (and physicists are smarter than engineers!) but this thread shows well that in fact they are no smarter than any other human being.

Um, do you really believe that by working in academia or science industry you aren't "part of the system"?

Finance knowledge is one of the most powerful tools that human can attain. Because you ignore that saying "it's just making money for money" you struggle to get a job and become code monkey or grant money slave for people who actually know how to get and what to do with money. Ignorance is always painful.

Now I remember that twofish-quant said sth about academia being good (similar to army) at brainwashing people's mind. Now I see what he meant.

 

[koab1mjr]

Finance knowledge is one of the most powerful tools that human can attain.

I think you are truly blind.

The only power finance has is the power is what stock people vest in it. We are one nuke bomb fest from your precious finance tools meaning nothing


I am not saying science people are smarter but to pursue a career for money sake is such a waste. Why spend so much time collect and hoarding what you can't take with you.

The rationale of pausing life to live it up when you are old and gray is just dumb.

There are people putting there best years down for a check. I think it is a poor use of ones time. Life is too short

You work to live not live to work

 

[alan2]

Odd thread. I studied physics and applied math but had a horrible time finding a permanent job. Finance is way more than investment banking. It is a mix of financial math, actuarial math, risk management, etc., and the math can be very challenging and interesting. It doesn't have to be materialistic, it doesn't have to be about making money at all, and it doesn't have to be boring. I work for a large university and my job is very important and has a great deal of value to all who depend on someone to safeguard precious assets so that education and research can continue efficiently. I feel very good about myself every night when my head hits the pillow. I learned from graduate school that physicists tend to be snobs. They aren't at all smarter than anyone else, they just choose to do something different. Be open.

 

[chill_factor]

this thread assumes that finance is easy to get into. but it isn't. if it was, everyone would be hauling in carts of cash as a quant. seriously, every 3rd question on here is "can I become a quant", do you think this is an under-demand field?

unless everyone here is just the top of their class gods of math and programming (and I doubt there's this many top of classes here, and what of the experimental scientists and engineers?) you don't choose finance, finance chooses you.

 

[Locrian]

I chose finance.

 

[twofish-quant]

I was speaking more from the engineering standpoint. Where I am 60hrs represents more of an upperbound.

Also it varies from group to group. Where I work, 60 hours is an upper bound, and I work a lot less than I did at the startup that I worked before. YMMV.

Supply and demand matters. Physics Ph.D.'s get treated a lot better than rookie MBA's, because physics Ph.D's would rather do something else, and if you treat them badly they will.

Again this is a systemic problem. We do not need more people on wall street.

Not sure about that. We do need more risk managers and compliance people.

In any case, at some point it doesn't matter. I can't put my life on hold while the economy gets restructured. If we conclude that there are too many people in Wall Street, and too few theoretical astrophysicists, the answer is simple. Offer me a job doing something else, and I'll take it.

Now if society concludes that there are too many people on Wall Street, and the solution involves me getting unemployed, then I'm going to fight that.

Money won't make you happy any.

It's part of the equation.

Not advocating going to the mountains and setting up a lab, but comparing a person 100% dedicated to science vs a person 100% dedicated to making this piece of paper with ink on it is a no brainer.

If you are 100% dedicated to science, you are going to be exploited by people dedicated to money. Also doing science is all about money. One thing that was good about my graduate education is that I got exposed to the money side of science.

 

[twofish-quant]

this thread assumes that finance is easy to get into. but it isn't. if it was, everyone would be hauling in carts of cash as a quant. seriously, every 3rd question on here is "can I become a quant", do you think this is an under-demand field?

It's not too hard to get into if you have a Ph.D. in physics. There are few quant positions, but there are even fewer Ph.D. physicists.

unless everyone here is just the top of their class gods of math and programming (and I doubt there's this many top of classes here, and what of the experimental scientists and engineers?) you don't choose finance, finance chooses you.

Still a dozen times easier than academia. Also, finance likes to portray itself as "masters of the universe" when sometimes the reality is different.

On the average, the quality of programmers in financial firms is the same as other high tech firms, and one weird thing is that a lot of banks would rather hire programmers from Microsoft and Google because they don't like the quality of Wall Street programming.

The other thing about finance is that it's a place where an "average Ph.D." can find a job.

One reason I got out of academia is that it was pretty obvious that I was "merely average" and if I had to go through resumes for faculty candidates in a research university, I wouldn't hire me.

 

[NegativeDept]

I don't know of anyone who went into physics to have a career in finance.

Fair point - I don't either. But I do know people (including myself) who went into physics to have a career finding practical uses for mathematics. Many of us consider quant finance to be a proper subset of that career goal. In my case, it even intersects my thesis, which borrows some theorems about SDEs and martingales from financial-modeling theory.

One of my colleagues said: "I try to predict how numbers change in time. I don't really care if they're electron momenta or stock prices, just as long as someone does something useful with the results." He was modeling protein folding and I'm modeling qubits, but I think we'd be just fine modeling things for Google or Boeing or Credit Suisse.

Not every physics PhD thinks this way, nor should they. Most of my colleagues would be totally miserable debugging Monte Carlo simulations of credit default swaps. Personally, I'd consider that a fair trade for a six-figure job in NYC. But that's obviously a subjective judgment.

 

[gravenewworld]

Instead of finance on Wall St., we need more scientists and engineers to take the initiative and start more companies to create more jobs in order to combat the constant off shoring. We've been relying on the business types for too long that are running the companies many of us work for. It's no surprise many tech companies get driven into the ground when they off shore all of their work (which just trains your competition) and companies invest very little of their funds in R and D (compared to other things like marketing). Then when the pipeline runs dry and the prototypes fail that the company has placed all of their bets on, they wonder why the company has failed.

 

[twofish-quant]

Instead of finance on Wall St., we need more scientists and engineers to take the initiative and start more companies to create more jobs in order to combat the constant off shoring.

The trouble with that is that the most important thing in starting a new company is financing which gets you back into the money thing.

We've been relying on the business types for too long that are running the companies many of us work for.

There's a reason for that.

I can do some sales/marketing/finance stuff. However, I don't particularly *like* to do sales/marketing/finance stuff, and I'm not particularly good at it. If someone *likes* to do that sort of stuff, it's great if they do that work and just let me do the science. If someone wants to do that stuff and ***take most of the money***, I'm cool with that.

The other thing is that you really don't need that many scientists even in a high tech company. One scientist invents something and then you just need to copy it. You need a ton of sales people, because you can't call two people at once. Then you need managers to manage the sales people, and managers to manage the managers.

And then there are the lawyers. In Shenzhen, you have lots of entrepreneurs that open "mom-and-pop" cell phone factories. One curious thing about cell phones is that you don't need a big company to make cell phones, and you really don't need a big company to do something *interesting* with a cell phone (i.e. make it pink with a Hello Kitty bow). You can (and people in Shenzhen do) start their own companies building cell phones.

In the US, you try that and you'll get killed with lawsuits.

It's no surprise many tech companies get driven into the ground when they off shore all of their work (which just trains your competition) and companies invest very little of their funds in R and D (compared to other things like marketing).

On the other hand if you invest most of your funds in R/D, then no one buys your product.

I'm starting to think that it's not economically feasible to have R/D be done in small profit driven companies selling to markets, and that in order to do something like that you need either a large company which can absorb capital costs, a government entity like a national lab, or a company with government funding (i.e. SpaceX or defense contractors).

The other thing to remember is that we live in a global world. One person's offshoring is someone else's onshoring. Something about multinationals is that they are multinational, so when someone talks about moving jobs from the United States to India and China, the Chinese and Indians in the room aren't going to be upset about it.

Then when the pipeline runs dry and the prototypes fail that the company has placed all of their bets on, they wonder why the company has failed.

But that gives a few good years while you milk the cow. If you put your money in R/D, then you run out of money before the product gets to market, and the company fails before it starts.

The point I'm making is that there are systemic reasons why things are what they are, and there is nothing obvious that I can see that one person can do to change things (if there were I'd be doing them).

 

[chill_factor]

so basically you are saying:

all real (risky) technical research is done at universities, giant multinationals, or government labs. it's almost impossible to get a high tech startup actually started up because you run out of money before the product is ready, or you get squished by a multinational that beats you in price wars or with lawsuits.

seems reasonable.