How to identify a good Quant...if you aren't a Quant?

[Dornick]

You can't call an expert and you need to discern whether the man/woman across from you is a good quant. What questions would you ask (and what should the answers be?)?

 

[Gavin L]

If they can explain in lay-mans terms what they do in less than 25 words, they know what they're doing. If they start talking about log normal distributions... they've missed the point.

 

[Ken Abbott]

If they can explain in lay-mans terms what they do in less than 25 words, they know what they're doing. If they start talking about log normal distributions... they've missed the point.

I was going to respond here, but you've said it better than I could have.

 

[Gavin L]

Good to know that as a graduating financial mathematics major (and prospective quant) I am not completely delusional :P

 

[Dornick]

Well said. Thanks for responding. It sounds simple enough but could be tricky in practice. Too basic and it will sound ubiquitous. Too complicated and, well, that's my life.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

If they can explain in lay-mans terms what they do in less than 25 words, they know what they're doing. If they start talking about log normal distributions... they've missed the point.

I don't agree. It is too simplistic.

 

[yetanotherquant]

If they can explain in lay-mans terms what they do in less than 25 words, they know what they're doing. If they start talking about log normal distributions... they've missed the point.

Confirm from my practical experience: guys and gals that were able to clearly explain a problem in layman terms usually created practically efficient models and/or their implementations.
I also encountered many theorists that readily chatted about mathematical nuances but were unable to solve a practical problem (indeed they didn't even understand it properly).

 

[Parallax]

If they can explain in lay-mans terms what they do in less than 25 words, they know what they're doing. If they start talking about log normal distributions... they've missed the point.

This is spot-on. People who are good (maybe even great) at what they do are able to customize their responses/explanations to the audience at hand. Clear, concise, and in layman terms for the non-quant, but with the ability to get as detailed and sophisticated with peer quants if needed.

Remember, there are a lot more non-quants in the world of finance than there are quants...so explaining to them can be argued as more important.

 

[Tom Maloney]

If they can explain in lay-mans terms what they do in less than 25 words, they know what they're doing. If they start talking about log normal distributions... they've missed the point.

Communicating is one thing. Being smart, knowing how to get work done with minimal supervision, is another. They may be correlated.