The view from the inside is different, but maybe we're touching different parts of the proverbial elephant. (I will caveat this statement with a disclaimer that I don't practice a finance profession, but have graduate degrees in economics and business.)
The fields are generally moving more quant-heavy, yes, but that doesn't imply that all non-traditional backgrounds are of equal value in a professional context. (Not PC, I know, but true.) Wren makes a good point about finance now recruiting heavily from math disciplines. Economics PhDs are also now prioritizing math majors. The interdisciplinary applicability of the quant skills allows for easier transitions between professions.
However, transferable skills do not equal domain-specific knowledge, and the candidates I see without graduate training in more than one field don't cut it when they try to straddle disciplines. The people who really carve out new domains and make a name for themselves are "generally specialists", to put it goofily - multi-domain specialists. So quant becomes a necessary, but not sufficient, qualifier. In other domains I'm not close to, I'm sure there's a new hybrid ideal.
Interdisciplinary skills are already recruited...
To a very limited degree.
In Canada, which is my experience, strategy consulting and investment banking only recruit for analyst roles from a handful of schools, all with heavy quant and applied learning components embedded within the programming. Outside those programs, pathways into the professions are extremely limited, short of an impressive publishing record, military service, or entrepreneurship. Ditto MBAs to associate roles. Strategy consultancies recruit very few experienced professionals outside the field, save for senior leaders moving firm-side from industry. Operational consultancies do tend to have a more open arms approach where they cover technical implementation.
The US is a little different at the undergrad level, since it doesn't have commerce programs, so it draws from a broader spectrum of fields, increasingly concentrated in quant domains (eng, CS, economics, math, etc.) At the MBA level, the recruitment is pretty uniform across countries, with some joint Phd/MBA, MD/MBA, JD/MBA programs. The firm that I worked at had a similar philosophy of recruiting only from select Ivies in the US.
So even if there is a large pool of candidates seeking access, it translates well below 1-1 into jobs in the field. Make sense?
I would wager that we know far fewer people who go in the other direction.
The reality is that these professions are incubators for talent that then migrates into the general market in 2-5 years, with far more exposure than conventional candidates have to a variety of cultures and problem solving approaches. The lifestyle is punishing and can't be sustained long-term for most who enter. So I would say there is a societal interest in graduates cutting their teeth in challenging environments and applying that rigor and discipline to future work. I'd say the same about military service. A high tide raises all boats.
But there's no shortage of smart people already pursuing those industries. The enrollment rates of top end MBA programs tells us that.
Bar none, the people working at MBB, PE funds, and ibanks are all whip smart. However, I would argue there is a shortage of
exceptionally original candidates in those fields, as evidenced by the proliferation of wickedly hard problems in the world that go unsolved, and cookie cutter decks I saw flying around. It's high-skilled grinding, much like a thoracic surgeon who can perform the same 3 procedures flawlessly day in and day out, but who doesn't pioneer new methods.
I'd love to see business training extended to more joint degree program candidates, as described above, so their discovery/research is carried out with commercialization in mind from the get-go. And if there were an appetite for it, I'd be thrilled to see social work programs combined with commerce undergrads in an expedited format, because the intersection between people and resources is key to so many of our biggest humanitarian challenges.
Either way, really interesting to share perspectives! Thanks so much for pushing back and sharing your thinking. Now your turn - I've talked too much! - which roles do you think we need to expand, Philly?
