• C++ Programming for Financial Engineering
    Highly recommended by thousands of MFE students. Covers essential C++ topics with applications to financial engineering. Learn more Join!
    Python for Finance with Intro to Data Science
    Gain practical understanding of Python to read, understand, and write professional Python code for your first day on the job. Learn more Join!
    An Intuition-Based Options Primer for FE
    Ideal for entry level positions interviews and graduate studies, specializing in options trading arbitrage and options valuation models. Learn more Join!

Business major transition to quant?

bigbadwolf said:
No, that's not the point. The point is that business calc serves no purpose -- it has nothing to do with business skills. It's just another useless filler course. Differentiation and integration of polynomial functions and then some "applications" to things like marginal revenue and marginal cost -- the kind of "application" that never arises in real life. Those taking this course are not prepared to take further calc nor have they developed any real business skill by so doing. If you're doing math, either do it properly or not at all. If not at all, fine -- there's only a limited need for quants and applied mathematicians. And to return to the title of the thread, that's the reason why a business major will (probably) not be able to make the transition to quant.
Click to expand...
In the context of the original purpose of this thread, I don't disagree with a single word of that... I just think things began veering off course a bit when people started inappropriately throwing around words like "idiots" and "empty suits" when referring to people with business backgrounds.
 
Last edited:
OP: wherever you are, please do not kill yourself after reading all those guys^^^. lol.

There are actually a lot of people who go into FE after doing pure finance. You just have to decide whether it is best for your goals.

Quant Finance is really a STEM-type of field. If you are not someone who would have studied physics or math in college for the fun of it, you are not someone who will like Quant Finance.

Everybody else: If we are measuring dicks against MFIN people (or rich people, or mathy people) here, I have to admit that I am completely average down there.
 
DannyF said:
Quant Finance is really a STEM-type of field. If you are not someone who would have studied physics or math in college for the fun of it, you are not someone who will like Quant Finance.
Click to expand...

That's a key point. The original quants were physicists and mathematicians who either could not get jobs in their disciplines (hardly surprising given the surfeit) or just wanted a change of scene after years of dreary grad school. Money was not the lure. If money is what draws you, there are easier ways of making it than going the quant route. And it's not clear that if you are money-minded you ever will have a mastery of quant: your approach will be cavalier, will be mercenary, and you will be asking questions like, "Do I really need real analysis?" And this is the problem with so many of the threads started here: they're started by people who make clear their only attraction to the world of quant is the (supposed) big bucks, and who just want the easiest, fastest, most pain-free road to acquiring the formal credentials to enter that world. I don't think it will work. If it's worldly success they're after, a Wharton business degree or Princeton finance degree will serve them better. At the heart of the issue is that the life of the mind and the life of chasing worldly success are two different things. In my exceedingly humble opinion.
 
Yeah, you can't just be after the money. But at the same time, you can't dismiss the money either. At the end of the day, your Sharpe ratio is a pretty good measuring stick of how good you are, assuming you are on the trading side of quant.

More generally, money is a (very noisy) measure of your tangible value added. Pure blue skies quant finance that has no profit potential is pointless.
 
TehRaio said:
'Might' be the case in finance but I don't think in the world of mathematics money buys respect.
Also doesn't "Masters of the universe" refer more to the MFINs of a precedent era than the MFEs?
Fact is, the industry is getting more technical, I hope MFEs become the MFINs of tomorrow.
Yes right now in this industry money gets you respect you may not deserve, but one can only hope with the inclusion of more people with more substance (math) over form (business and all) It will change.

You ought to take a look at the pdf I posted earlier, and read some of the responses a student thinking about majoring in finance got when he asked if he needed to be good at math.

If some only get into Quantitative Finance for the money, then they will respect those making more money than them just for that fact alone. But if they care about finance, or mathematical finance as a science, at least as much as they did when they chose to pursue a science degree, then I can't imagine any of them having respect for people who are basically "empty-suits" as Taleb calls them.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention Taleb at the end. He is mostly raving against using math in finance..
 
tfors said:
Funny you mention Taleb at the end. He is mostly raving against using math in finance..
Click to expand...
the dude did his thesis on the mathematics of derivative pricing, he can't possibly be against the use of math in finance. "Against the improper use of math in finance" would be a better summary of his stances. I've read that he's against "Value At Risk" but I don't know anything about that yet to comment.
 
TehRaio said:
alright, if this wasn't off topic enough I would like to attract your attention toward a paper i'm actually reading that touches on the subject:

Mathematics in finance and economics: importance of
teaching higher order mathematical thinking skills in
finance


http://www.ejbest.org/upload/eJBEST_Tularam_-_7(1)_2013.pdf
Click to expand...
I'm at a target uni in Australia and most of the business/commerce degree people have not an inkling about higher order mathematical modelling. They give lip service to 'Black Scholes' but lecturers assure students 'You don't need to *actually* know this!'

'Here's a Q-Q plot showing log normal returns but DON'T WORRY I'M NOT GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS.'

Student: 'What's a Q-Q?? Did you mean Q_Q?'

'Don't worry!!'

In Australia (and also in the US as well I think) there's a fear of STEM. STEM is too hard, STEM is not for me, I'm a commerce major....

I think the problem STEMs (lol) from a fear of mathematics and the hard sciences, which is tragic, but that's for another thread.
 
Going on from that, we have this department/major within the Business School called Quantitative Business Analytics but last year they changed the name to 'Business Analytics'... wonder why.
 
bigbadwolf said:
Just as there's "business calc" (hang on a sec, let me throw up in disgust), there should also be "business stochastic processes." And there's a definite niche for books like "Stochastic Processes for Dummies/Idiots."
Click to expand...

Let the dummy GBM dynamics be defined as dSt =dt
Easy to integrate from t to T! :) No problemo
 
Back
Top