Start all-over at Bachelor?

[TobyB]

Hi friends,

I am a bit in concerned about my chances of being admitted to a reputable MFE program: I am about to finish my Bachelor in Business Administration at the top university of Germany, which hasn't really given me a considerable amount of math input. We did have three statistics courses and I might extend that a little bit further, but I honestly doubt it's going somewhere. German high school math is pretty advanced but I guess it's not enough to cope with an MFE.

So what to do? I really enjoy reading quant books, I read Wilmott and I am about to program my first algorithm in Python (I have also learned Java for 4 years). But that doesn't teach you math like a university. Moreover, I cannot prove that I have obtained that knowledge.

Do you think the good MFE programs will accept me because of my programming experience?
Or should I start at ground zero and apply for a Bachelor in Mathematics / Computational Finance / Mathematics and Computer Science? I am turning 22 this year so a 4-year Bachelor + MFE might take its toll when everybody else is years younger.

And one more thing: If I go the second Bachelor route, would you recommend a simple mathematics degree or some kind of combination with Computer Science / Finance?

Thanks for all your input, I really appreciate it!

Toby

 

[TehRaio]

short answer: don't apply for a second bachelor.
Apply, Apply, Apply! if you don't get an admission to a MFE that suits your needs, try getting a job in finance that's close to quantitative finance (such as market risk management ETC...).

 

[CasanovaJ]

Hi friends,
I am about to finish my Bachelor in Business Administration at the top university of Germany

I'd think this could to lead to a perfectly respectable finance job in Germany, albeit not necessarily a *quant* one... there would be something so horrible about this that you're apparently now willing to spend an additional 5 years in school (plus $100k to an American grad school) to do something specifically *quant-related* when you just spent four years in school and for some reason didn't bother spending more than three semesters on math? What's the point?...

 

[bigbadwolf]

Do you think the good MFE programs will accept me because of my programming experience?

No, and I don't think even the second-tier programs will admit you. Furthermore you haven't said you enjoy math -- the ones who make the good quants are the ones who are genetically predisposed to do math and have enjoyed it since they were in diapers. The ones who have no aptitude for math are the ones who approach it in mercenary fashion because it's needed for a quant degree -- and this attitude adversely affects their mastery of quant math.

 

[Jordan Platts]

I was in a very similar situation. I was a junior in college with just a finance major. I took one class in C programming and chose to double major in CS. It took me 6 years for both degrees because I took full class loads every semester from that point on. Afterwards, it set me up with 3 different opportunities.
1. Tech company
2. IT at IB
3. Asset management firm
I'd imagine you would have similar options. I chose the AM firm.

Overall, I'm happy with my decision. I am never worried about being out of a job, because I know I can get paid to be a programmer. I am able to get some money saved for the mfe. I have relevant work experience, which is helping to guide me to the right mfe. My application will be very strong.

Now things may turn out different for you, but I suggest to not rush into anything. Take the time now to solidify your foundation of knowledge and skills before trying to go to the next step. You're still young.

Hope this helps.

 

[mathemagician]

No, and I don't think even the second-tier programs will admit you. Furthermore you haven't said you enjoy math -- the ones who make the good quants are the ones who are genetically predisposed to do math and have enjoyed it since they were in diapers. The ones who have no aptitude for math are the ones who approach it in mercenary fashion because it's needed for a quant degree -- and this attitude adversely affects their mastery of quant math.

This quote is like poetry.

If you do end up pursuing a math bachelors', let me make one thing clear: a "simple mathematics" degree does not exist. Unless you mean simple as in "a cookie-cutter mathematics degree that fits the basic degree requirements", then even that is ambiguous because eventually you have to choose between pure and applied.

A mathematics degree geared towards MFE programs should include all Calculus, Linear Algebra, Calculus-based statistics, ODE, PDE, and whatever else bigbadwolf will scold me for forgetting. Along this path, you'll have to take some pure math classes as well which will benefit you in different ways you won't find available through applied math classes.

Don't double major if you do another bachelor's. Spend all your time focused on mathematics and the rest will come naturally. Some CS classes wouldn't hurt, however.

 

[bigbadwolf]

A mathematics degree geared towards MFE programs should include all Calculus, Linear Algebra, Calculus-based statistics, ODE, PDE, and whatever else bigbadwolf will scold me for forgetting. Along this path, you'll have to take some pure math classes as well which will benefit you in different ways you won't find available through applied math classes.

The division between pure and applied is fake, a bureaucratic convenience. Without courses in real analysis and linear algebra, mastery of ODEs, PDEs, and numerical methods is seriously hindered.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

The division between pure and applied is fake, a bureaucratic convenience. Without courses in real analysis and linear algebra, mastery of ODEs, PDEs, and numerical methods is seriously hindered.

What would Leonhard Euler have thought of this 21st century revisionism?

 

[bigbadwolf]

What would Leonhard Euler have thought of this 21st century revisionism?

He, Gauss and Riemann would have wet themselves silly. But on this forum you have ignoramuses pontificating about the strict line of demarcation between pure and applied. And I confess that after reading the same bilge year after year here, I grow weary.

Another thing that bothers me -- while I'm on the subject -- is courses in "applied linear algebra." In a sense all linear algebra is applicable. The "applied" really means dumbed-down linear algebra, in the same sense that "business calculus" is dumbed-down calculus.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

He, Gauss and Riemann would have wet themselves silly. But on this forum you have ignoramuses pontificating about the strict line of demarcation between pure and applied. And I confess that after reading the same bilge year after year here, I grow weary.

I did not even mention Lagrange, Hamilton and all the other orthogonal polynomials

 

[mathemagician]

He, Gauss and Riemann would have wet themselves silly. But on this forum you have ignoramuses pontificating about the strict line of demarcation between pure and applied. And I confess that after reading the same bilge year after year here, I grow weary.

Another thing that bothers me -- while I'm on the subject -- is courses in "applied linear algebra." In a sense all linear algebra is applicable. The "applied" really means dumbed-down linear algebra, in the same sense that "business calculus" is dumbed-down calculus.

applied math courses say nothing of theory and you assume it all to be true
pure math courses say nothing of application and you assume nothing

but that deals with undergrad college courses, not the argument of pure vs applied. A lot of students consider stuff like geometry, abstract algebra, etc as "pure" math because there are no examples of application.

I completely agree, there is no "applied" math, there are only applications of pure math

 

[Daniel Duffy]

And the artificial distinction disappears with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(mathematics)

 

[MBA-Trader]

There is a distinction between applied and pure math. You do not obsess over proofs in the former. You may call it "dumbed-down" all you want, but then you miss the point. The point being economy of thought. Of course, theory can be important to an engineer but not necessarily and certainly not most of the time, so it makes sense to train them mainly in methods and applications.

On the other point raised now, and although I am not mathematician nor engineer, if you want to say there is only one kind of math, then that is applied math. I don't think I need to explain.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

There is a distinction between applied and pure math. You do not obsess over proofs in the former. You may call it "dumbed-down" all you want, but then you miss the point. The point being economy of thought. Of course, theory can be important to an engineer but not necessarily and certainly not most of the time, so it makes sense to train them mainly in methods and applications.

On the other point raised now, and although I am not mathematician nor engineer, if you want to say there is only one kind of math, then that is applied math. I don't think I need to explain.

Not really true. A bit artificial.

 

[MBA-Trader]

What's that? I mean my point was that the existence of pure math was artificial.

Anyway, this forum has become too slow and I don't know if there is a point for such conversations.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

What's that? I mean my point was that the existence of pure math was artificial.

Also not true.

Anyway, this forum has become too slow and I don't know if there is a point for such conversations.
You blaming others now?

 

[MBA-Trader]

Hahaha!!

OK, man. Cheers.