Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Online Courses
2023 Rankings
2023 MFE Programs Rankings Methodology
Reviews
Latest reviews
Search resources
Tracker
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
New profile posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Home
Home
Articles
Five ways to improve quantitative finance curricula
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Yang_Pop" data-source="post: 92642" data-attributes="member: 10917"><p>excellent and thoughtful article!</p><p>I take these principles in such a way that divide them into two groups:</p><p>A. Principle of data, responsibility, and betting;</p><p>B. Principle of rigor and perpetual education;</p><p> </p><p>Principles in group A are more about improving the practical skills for a quant. They are the characteristics that distinguish a student in the program with a real quant in the financial market, and can help students act in their professional "quant" roles more readily. </p><p>Principle in group B, in my opinion, are good professional characteristics of a qualified quant. However, these characteristics needs more than training in the FE program, experience, personal perspective and altitude are also involved. </p><p>Principles in group A can be achieved by editing the curriculum of a program better than those in group B, I guess.</p><p>Besides, I think sometimes betting(or judging and making decision) is at least as important as calculating and modeling, since even the orbit of planets can be calculated and predicted while the craziness of public can not. Betting is not just betting, I guess, quants bet based on information, their intuitional judgement and sensibility about the economic circumstances, the market and industry. For example, some analysts can escape from the 2008 financial crisis, just because they "sense" it, and try to look into it, and believe it at last. And the development of such sensitivity would take no less time than the mathematical and engineering training.</p><p>However, as "people better focus on only one thing then on quite a few". </p><p>I was thinking that there would be some frictions, and if someone want to do a good job in all these aspects, he might fail to be distinguished in none of them.</p><p>So, should the quants have a slightly division of their responsibility and capasity?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Yang_Pop, post: 92642, member: 10917"] excellent and thoughtful article! I take these principles in such a way that divide them into two groups: A. Principle of data, responsibility, and betting; B. Principle of rigor and perpetual education; Principles in group A are more about improving the practical skills for a quant. They are the characteristics that distinguish a student in the program with a real quant in the financial market, and can help students act in their professional "quant" roles more readily. Principle in group B, in my opinion, are good professional characteristics of a qualified quant. However, these characteristics needs more than training in the FE program, experience, personal perspective and altitude are also involved. Principles in group A can be achieved by editing the curriculum of a program better than those in group B, I guess. Besides, I think sometimes betting(or judging and making decision) is at least as important as calculating and modeling, since even the orbit of planets can be calculated and predicted while the craziness of public can not. Betting is not just betting, I guess, quants bet based on information, their intuitional judgement and sensibility about the economic circumstances, the market and industry. For example, some analysts can escape from the 2008 financial crisis, just because they "sense" it, and try to look into it, and believe it at last. And the development of such sensitivity would take no less time than the mathematical and engineering training. However, as "people better focus on only one thing then on quite a few". I was thinking that there would be some frictions, and if someone want to do a good job in all these aspects, he might fail to be distinguished in none of them. So, should the quants have a slightly division of their responsibility and capasity? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Home
Home
Articles
Five ways to improve quantitative finance curricula
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top