• 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!

With Finance Disgraced, Which Career Will Be King?

Thanks bigbadwolf -- I was about to try directing the debate towards where it began, but you summed it up better than I can.

N.B. Ivy League is overrated. I hope I'm qualified enough to make that statement, since I attended two of them. My time in those institutions convinced me: what you do with resources around you is more important than what resources are around you.
 
Business Grads Looking Beyond Wall Street

A similarly interesting article on NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/business/economy/18grads.html

PHILADELPHIA — Riana Paige, an undergraduate senior at the Wharton School of Business, had a high-paying internship at JPMorgan Chase last summer and was disappointed when she did not receive an offer for a full-time job after graduation. Now she is pursuing a job teaching in Dubai, or working for a wine importer.

Daniel Miller, a Wharton senior who interned last summer at a boutique private equity firm in Manhattan, became so discouraged by his search for jobs in finance that he began thinking about becoming a rabbi.

Jessica Levy, also a senior at Wharton, the nation's most prestigious undergraduate business program, was stunned when her supervisor at UBS told her that although she had done a terrific job as an intern, the bank could not offer her a job after graduation. Her dreams of investment banking quashed, she recently took the Foreign Service exam and is vying for a job at the State Department.
 
Vwah-hah at business majors!

This is why being an engineer is so awesome. But unfortunately, I can't shake my ambition of power to change society, and unfortunately, someone is only listened to when they're worth nine or ten figures, or they're the POTUS, and because I'm an immigrant, I can't be POTUS :(.

I actually have managed to land a temp position as a little IEOR hireling for the summer while continuing to look for more solid employment (Wall Street undoubtedly beckons), which will also allow me to continue to do research ^_^.

As for the idea that you need an ivy league biz education to run a 20,000 person company, well...

http://www.airproducts.com/NR/rdonlyres/5142D1A1-8A95-4451-BD30-C2633411FC42/0/McGlade_Feb2009.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/officerProfile?symbol=APD.N&officerId=407176

Read it and weep ^_^. I met the guy yesterday actually. He's an alumnus of my department ^_^. I have to say, he's utterly awesome. The fact that he comes by every year to meet with the little guys is just great.

Edit: I'm actually glad finance is downsizing. IMO it needs to be another sector of the economy, not *the* economy, and one in which there are no entitlements, and the only livings to be earned will be honest. If that'll happen and it'll be a niche sector like the rest, Wall Street will re-earn the respect and hopefully mythical status it had back in the 80s and 90s.
 
Ilya:

First, congratulations on the summer gig. Here's hoping to a fruitful summer which you can then translate into a fantastic employment on Wall Street.

Second, I don't think any of us here was under the illusion that you need to have an Ivy League degree to command a large company. If there's anyone that thinks such education is key towards success, that would be you. Contradicting yourself again?

Third, why the hate towards business majors? And why do you keep glorifying the hard sciences? I'd rather understand the person holistically than knowing what he majored in. I'd argue that someone who graduated 4.0 magna cum laude in Economics from The University of Chicago probably merited more recognition than a 3.0 engineer from some unknown university.

Fourth, are you going to reply to BBW's post down there or are you going to bullshit your way into some other tangential debate?

Fifth, I might be speaking for myself here, but I utterly despise self-righteous people.
 
Why the hate towards biz majors? This is why: because scientists, mathematicians, and engineers are part of the process of *creating* something. Their skills help bring into the world something which never was. Business majors (I'll add law in there since so many lawyers exist as tools of businesses) simply add a layer of prisoner's dilemma to the free markets in my opinion, in which they're the only ones who win.

As for BBW, I fully agree with his post. I think finance morphed into a monstrosity for too many people who felt entitled to too much. I think it's a legitimate field, but I think it needs to revert back to the Wall Street in which a man's word was his bond, and merit ruled the day.

And thanks for the congrats ^_^.
 
Andy said:
A similarly interesting article on NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/business/economy/18grads.html

PHILADELPHIA — Riana Paige, an undergraduate senior at the Wharton School of Business, had a high-paying internship at JPMorgan Chase last summer and was disappointed when she did not receive an offer for a full-time job after graduation. Now she is pursuing a job teaching in Dubai, or working for a wine importer.

Daniel Miller, a Wharton senior who interned last summer at a boutique private equity firm in Manhattan, became so discouraged by his search for jobs in finance that he began thinking about becoming a rabbi.

Jessica Levy, also a senior at Wharton, the nation's most prestigious undergraduate business program, was stunned when her supervisor at UBS told her that although she had done a terrific job as an intern, the bank could not offer her a job after graduation. Her dreams of investment banking quashed, she recently took the Foreign Service exam and is vying for a job at the State Department.
Click to expand...

Good article. The main point for me is: hard skills required!
It is good as a candidate to market himself/herself, to be aware of market conditions, to be a good team-player, to have best school brand etc.

The question is really: what can you do on your own?
Can you get a product + model and implement it? Can you analyze the data and get a solution based on fundamental analytics? Can you understand in-depth a model and calibrate it to the market? ...

Unfortunately as a student there is always the attraction to shun these skills. It takes effort, it is not so exciting, it does not show immediate results. If this is done consistently throughout entire education, then we have a bit of a problem. Many of these students realize that they don't know much and worse yet, is that they have a small basis to get into a field.
 
IlyaKEightSix said:
As for BBW, I fully agree with his post. I think finance morphed into a monstrosity for too many people who felt entitled to too much. I think it's a legitimate field, but I think it needs to revert back to the Wall Street in which a man's word was his bond, and merit ruled the day.
Click to expand...

What the f**k? I'm giving up on you man. Have fun BS-ing your way through life. So much for your engineering education. Take care, and have a nice day.
 
I clicked on this thread in hope of getting some discussion on what "career would be king" and all I see is fighting.

So...what career WILL be king? I would like to know.
 
I would again say it would be finance.If finance cannot recover then the economy doesnot recover which means all sectors will be stagnant.
 
buddyforall said:
I would again say it would be finance.If finance cannot recover then the economy doesnot recover which means all sectors will be stagnant.
Click to expand...

Finance cannot recover. Or if it does recover it will be because of all sorts of state assistance that will at best be a short-term palliative. The economy -- US and global -- will need some other mechanism.
 
Bigbadwolf,

This is somewhat of an aside, but just out of curiosity, is this your blog?
 
Sanket Patel said:
Bigbadwolf,

This is somewhat of an aside, but just out of curiosity, is this your blog?
Click to expand...

It is, but it has nothing to do with quant stuff (if it ever did) and I'm all over the place these days, writing about anything that catches my whim. Feel free to ignore it. :) I'm sitting in Norway and I while away some of the time writing about whatever catches my fancy. Since it's idiosyncratic (to put it mildly), and since it's meant for a general readership, I don't exactly advertise it on Quantnet.
 
bigbadwolf said:
Finance cannot recover. Or if it does recover it will be because of all sorts of state assistance that will at best be a short-term palliative. The economy -- US and global -- will need some other mechanism.
Click to expand...


Can you say what other mechanism, its not exactly clear.Finance is dependent on the state of economy.We cannot have a situation where finance is stuck in a rat hole and people in IT,Engineering making millions and billions.

What I suppose will have happen is eradication of complex products and enhancement of products that have robust risk management and strong fundamentals.So while there will not be a boom in finance in the short term but on an average finance will still be paying 40-50% more than its nearest competetior and people will have more sane hours.
 
buddyforall said:
Can you say what other mechanism, its not exactly clear.Finance is dependent on the state of economy.We cannot have a situation where finance is stuck in a rat hole and people in IT,Engineering making millions and billions.

What I suppose will have happen is eradication of complex products and enhancement of products that have robust risk management and strong fundamentals.So while there will not be a boom in finance in the short term but on an average finance will still be paying 40-50% more than its nearest competetior and people will have more sane hours.
Click to expand...

There may not be any mechanism for "growth" in any real sense as human society reaches the limit of what the biosphere can support. We can't just keep increasing production and consumption. But my argument is that even if it does occur, it won't be finance-led -- which has been the case for the last thirty years. Indeed, the explosive growth of finance and of the increasing share it has grabbed of both the US and UK GDP has been precisely because the other sectors of the economy have been stagnating. Inter alia, experts in other disciplines -- engineering, math, and physics have been drifting into finance not just because of better pay but because there have literally been no jobs in their areas. Indeed, John Bellamy Foster has consistently made the argument that the ballooning of the financial sector has occurred because of the stagnation of the real economy. You can read more here and here.

With regard to pay, I think the differential will probably be less than 40% -- but your guess is as good as mine. With less exotic products on the market (and hence less superprofits available), and with a large supply of competent finance people on the market, wages and bonuses will probably move down sharply. As they did in the wake of the Great Depression. But this is a personal opinion. Thise who think otherwise are quite free to act on their sanguine outlook. The golden era of finance has probably come to an abrupt end.
 
Golden age? I think the golden age of finance is yet to arrive. Human growth will always be increasing for this reason:

Technology.

The ability to get more done in shorter spans of time will allow humans to always be ever more productive, so long as they are able to utilize the latest technologies.

And technology grows exponentially.

As for finance, I actually would love if Wall Street would mutate into another American icon--Silicon Valley.

Think about it--finance is becoming more and more technologically dominated, and at D.E. Shaw, sandals and slacks and shorts are not uncommon. Can you envision Wall Street being made up of a bunch of bright kids making sure our markets are running efficiently, rather than a bunch of "Wall Streeters" and "masters of the universe" and a bunch of smooth-talking, glad-handing salesmen?

I can tell you that that would be a far brighter golden age than anything in history.
 
I am somewhat cynical, but I think I disagree. Apparently the average "housewife" in America still spends just as much time today doing chores as they did towards the start of the century (if what I read can be believed). So, despite all the wonderful new appliances, the amount of work hasnt really changed so much. Most user-based technology now, if you're honest with yourself, is I think more about indulgence, than productivity. More pointless consumer crap to waste your life away minute by minute....

I also think that the idea that a bunch of bright kids will take up arms and clean up the Wild Wall Street out of the good of their efficiently-minded hearts, is somewhat naive. Where there is money, there will be corruption and greed. And my idea of the golden age of humanity leans a little more towards less war/hunger/etc, than more efficient markets.

</opinion>
 
I suppose the question should be asked, "What does it mean for a career to be king?"

Does it mean a career that a large number of young people are clamoring to enter, a career promising fame, power, and respect to the precious few who manage to claw their way to the top? I'd say film and TV acting wins that title hands down.

Does it mean a career that a large number of young people wish to join in order to change the world, a career that most Americans believe controls the real power behind effecting significant cultural change? Don't look now, but the Obama administration seems to have made politics -- not to mention community organizing -- pretty sexy right about now.

Or does it mean a career that allows its practitioners entree to all the right parties, the ability to order bottle service without a second thought, the wherewithal to afford expansive penthouse apartments in whatever the hot new neighborhood happens to be this week? This career will probably remain the same career it has always been: being born into money. It's hard to get into, but I hear the perks are fantastic.
 
daleholborow said:
I am somewhat cynical, but I think I disagree. Apparently the average "housewife" in America still spends just as much time today doing chores as they did towards the start of the century (if what I read can be believed). So, despite all the wonderful new appliances, the amount of work hasnt really changed so much. Most user-based technology now, if you're honest with yourself, is I think more about indulgence, than productivity. More pointless consumer crap to waste your life away minute by minute....

I also think that the idea that a bunch of bright kids will take up arms and clean up the Wild Wall Street out of the good of their efficiently-minded hearts, is somewhat naive. Where there is money, there will be corruption and greed. And my idea of the golden age of humanity leans a little more towards less war/hunger/etc, than more efficient markets.
Click to expand...

I am cynical of this. I believe that at some point, you can have all of the money you can personally want. And after that, it's literally a matter of keeping score. Is a scorecard and an ego worth corrupting yourself over? I don't understand how so many can think that way.

And if I do come to understand it, then hopefully I myself don't think that way.
 
Back
Top