Can I still become a quant with a criminal record?

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I think the "outdated" negative information applied to arrests and convictions, as well, unless I misread something in the document.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I think the "outdated" negative information applied to arrests and convictions, as well, unless I misread something in the document.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