Learning in a classroom can be an end in itself, but for most of us, a solid education is nothing more than taking baby steps toward that first full-time job. It beats crawling, but often leaves one unprepared for the rigors of the outside world. Internships are supposed to fill this void, providing a bridge between academia and work, but those of us who are currently working full-time jobs are not in a position to take advantage of them.
So how about it? What would you change about the way finance is taught, both by universities and the CFA Institute, to better prepare their graduates and charterholders for success?
Personally, this all reminds me of when I passed my road test and bought my friend's father's car. I had never driven on a highway before, nor had I experienced the joy of weaving in and out of traffic and avoiding double parked cars prior to making this purchase. I taught myself how to do these things out of necessity, but I wondered how much smoother my transition into a licensed driver would have been had these more challenging maneuvers been a part of the driving curriculum.
Most of them aren't book smart, so I would start there. It doesn't even need to be finance specific. I think most severely lack a LAC curriculum that would benefit them in all areas of life, including within finance.
The problem is rarely that people are book smart and real world stupid. If this was a problem in this country, foreigners wouldn't be dominating all of the STEM programs.
I have to respectfully disagree with this. For example, I personally believe Asian education system is messed up (lots of memorization and less on critical thinking). Yes, there are a lot of foreigners (especially Asians) in the STEM programs, and they will get good jobs at junior levels.
But they won't be able to move further in the corporate ladder because most of them like to follow rules like good students and fail to see the bigger picture in term of how to lead a corporation. Asian education has been widely criticized for producing "good managers and not good leaders".
Among Asian professional groups, this has been widely discussed topic: to get ahead in major corporation (everywhere) you need leadership skills (lots of street smarts) while book smarts is only going as far as making you a good manager.
I am an Asian who went through both Asian and US education systems. I have seen how people from both groups react differently in the corporate world. Book smarts and street smarts are totally different kinds of skill sets.
You really proved my point. Westerners do not have a problem with having 'books smarts', but no 'street smarts' as a whole. Again, if it was a problem for people in the US/Europe, the STEM programs wouldn't be dominated by foreigners because we would have more than enough of those types to fill the programs.
Further, I think most of the time people with straight finance/business type degrees generally don't have anymore real world knowledge than anybody else. They are just more focused, which rarely means they are any smarter. Most of the people I see throwing around that phrase are pretty stupid, actually.
FYI, asian students on average do not have a higher iq than american students, they are simply way better at math due to the way their number system works. Read the new Malcom Gladwell book, pretty fucking legit.
read 10-ks, not CFA books
This title applies heavily to women. Sorry.
So true. So many women aren't innately street smart or even book smart, but they study their asses off and follow all the rules in school. Then when they get out in the real world they generally don't have what it takes to move up the hierarchy in finance, especially socially.
You should be sorry about that unsubstantiated comment, and I'm glad you are.
Women actually have double the work to do in terms of leadership; and proving themselves. They have to debunk that myth before even getting to the real work. Its easier to keep an A+ if you have one in the beginning (or if you are a man and expected to be capable); than move the perception of you from an F to an A+ before any work has even been done. I admit that women are frequently daunted by this task - but that is an obvious 'which came first; the chicken or the egg?' situation.
I think the only part that really irks me is that you didnt even give any reason; as if it was such a given that one was not necessary. Which actually proves my point above.
There are many MORE male leaders; but who can actually say that the QUALITY of that leadership is better? That is not an invitation for more unsubstantiated opinions. Its not enough to conclude that because there are more male leaders; men are BETTER at leadership. That is clearly flawed logic. Factors like sexism (over centuries) and oppression have limited womens access to the market; and if the tables had been turned I do believe that men (in terms of physical numbers in leadership roles, especially in finance etc) would be in the exact same position.
So no, "Oreos"; "This title applies heavily to women. Sorry." is just not good enough.
A lot of the factors like "sexism" just have to do with the fact that female biology predisposes them for nurturing and child-bearing instincts. It's not sexist, it's evolutionary. Stay at home moms are common, originating from the days where the man would go out and hunt while the woman would protect the children, whereas stay at home dads are not. Now I'm definitely NOT saying that women can't be capable - many women would destroy any man at a job they do well, and I have female friends who would be great bosses and leaders.
I'd also argue that men have to do double the work to prove themselves, in contrast to what you said. If you're a woman, your chances of getting into a good school and a good job are greatly improved due to affirmative action and diversity programs. Being male, and especially a white male, is almost a handicap. As a side note, I can understand your fear that women are seen as being stupid maybe 50 years ago, but look at our society's conception of women today. When's the last time you saw a tv show make fun of a stupid woman/wife while the husband/man rolls his eyes and the laugh track plays? It's the other way around - men are portrayed in the media as being stupid whereas it's always the smart, grounded woman who rolls her eyes and is seen as capable. In today's day and age, your argument that women need to prove themselves intellectually just doesn't hold up. Now they DO need to prove that they are capable of handling the atmosphere of certain positions (some are very fratty), and to be frank, many of them stop working or change jobs when they decide to settle down. But for all intents and purposes a woman is going to have a much easier job of being hired than a man will with equal qualifications today.
Wow, sorry I touched a nerve. I would type out a rather protracted response but I have to show my girlfriend how to work the tv recorder, put together her flat pack furniture, read a map for her and then I'm off to learn how to drive in a normal time span.
It is AnchorMAN, not AnchorLADY, and that is a scientific fact!
I think you got a little too indignant at what was likely intended as a joke, but by getting all serious you kinda proved his point.
the way i got street smarts is by hanging out with future gang members as a kid and having the sense to stop hanging out with them before they started getting serious with armed robbery and ADW.
ADW?
Assault with a deadly weapon.
If schools want to have better finance students, they should require a current events class for the last two years. Force kids to read the paper. A class on negotiation techniques would have been useful as well.
I think the most important thing for a finance student (or any student) to realize is that they are going to have to educate themselves to get ahead of the pack.
Take philosophy, writing, speaking, and history classes. They prepare you just as much as classes on finance theory.
Very true. Formal education in finance is weak. Even business schools don't teach what you really need to succeed. I mean, jesus, Modern Portfolio Theory/EMH are still the foundation of most finance courses...it's like teaching chemistry using the valence shell model. Yea, it kind of works and is easy to grasp, but it is wrong.
Even in banking, do not expect to get much from the training programs. Ok, you get accounting 101 and introductory finance, but you do not emerge able to build full M&A models...
This is exactly right. It's inexcusable that MPT is still taught. It doesn't even pass basic logical reasoning examination. You've got this concept beta, and the more a stock goes down, the riskier it gets? How does that work? How are cheaper assets MORE risky? It makes no sense. The CFA program is a complete sham since it is based around this garbage and the premise that markets are inherently efficient. I can't really speak about business school, but I've heard most schools take a similar approach.
I also agree with illini's point above -- the value of a liberal arts degree is misunderstood in today's market place. Just because you learn basic accounting and memorize a couple of valuation ratios doesn't mean you are going to be a skilled investor. The game is about high stakes competitive learning, not passing a few exams with some technical questions in college.
A negotiation class was one of the pre-requ for business majors at my school. I can definitely say that it has been having some meaningful impact on my career.
mandatory military service, after spending time interning and learning your undergraduate finance course of study. its an easy solution to the world's leadership issues. the best leaders in my eyes have and always will come from a countrys armed forces.
women arent meant to lead..they are meant to follow, this will never change. the ones that actually get somewhere fucked their way up the ladder or had a rich daddy. there are no other possibilities, at least in ibd.
Guys we have a drunk dude on WSO, watch out!
cant learn no hustle from no book dawg. how u think bill gayts made he milli? readin books? lol nah brah. he got tha hustle
Yes, I totally agree with this post. I'm in a senior-level finance course right now and it's almost entirely creating financial models--and I love it.
Rather than saying, "In this class I learned...," I can actually say "In this class I learned how to...," and can back that statement up with actual examples of my work. I've been forced to teach myself basic programming, which should have been a part of my major courses, learned negotiation techniques through organizational involvement and reading. It's honestly very sad that we graduate not knowing how to create anything of value, and at times the coursework blocks rather than facilitates learning.
All in all, I'm very dissatisfied with my undergraduate experience and wish that I had gone the alternate route for my college career, learning more of an applied trade. I would have been studying Fire Engineering as my alternate path and can only imagine how much money I'd make if I got into the oil and gas industries--but I digress.
I think this article was posted previously but here is a link that is very in line with the topics discussed in this thread: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-16/harvard-liberal-arts-failure-i…
Nothing I learned in 4 years at Wharton, which is supposed to be considered the most practical business education available for an undergrad, contributed AT ALL to helping me get ahead in finance. This includes even the most basic accounting classes... somehow they were able to fuck those up too. Everything that put me ahead of the average student was self-taught. If you don't invest on your own or read the paper or have valuable life experiences that give you the right perspective, you're not going to learn shit in college, even at "good" schools.
I'll always argue that it comes down to having a passion for what you're doing. That's the only way you'll get ahead of everyone else and actually go out of your way to learn what's truly important outside of school. There's a reason why banking firms don't give too much of a shit what your major is when they recruit SA's.
They know that in 3 months on the job they can teach you what 4 years of undergrad (hell, let's include MBA and make it 6) couldn't even come close to doing.
look, lets throw this out there the worst situations in the world are high stress situations. place a woman in a high stress situation and watch her implode. if she doesnt implode initially, she will eventually. if she does somehow succeed, she was really meant to have a cock or she actually does. nada mas.
Okay, this women leadership discussion is fucking stupid. As for how finance classes have to change to make them better:
1) 75% of the finance majors at my school are lazy as hell (and sometimes stupid as hell too). The other 25% are usually pretty ambitious and hardworking. Colleges need finance classes that you have to apply to get into. And the application isn't decided just by your GPA or even your relationship with your prof. You submit your resume, and then you interview to get into the class - similar things do already exist, so this is a feasible change.
2) Classes need an emphasis on team projects. Now that we've weeded out all the lazy fucks, we can randomly group everybody into strong, hardworking teams that they can work with throughout the class.
3) Students should not simply be responsible to a professor. You're probably going to have a PhD teaching the class, and this is a good thing, but academics can spend too much time on theory, and not enough time teaching useful skills. A good addition would be a presentation of a project to one of the school's successful finance alumni at the end of the semester. This would force the project to be on something practical (say financial modeling skills). It would also motivate the students to work hard, as they would get face-time with a potential mentor if nothing else. It would also benefit the alumni, as he/she would get to meet and appraise some of the school's most talented finance students.
This would help a lot, and could simply be a class that's added on top of the current (more theoretical) finance curriculum.
This is a fantastic idea. Actually, almost all of my favorite classes were taught by people taking a break from the private sector. Academia breeds a mindset contrary to the modern business world...I remember some people in undergrad would struggle to come in under a 15 page cap in response to some prompt that could be adequately answered in a paragraph.
If I gave a 15 page Word document to any employer, it would end up in the trash. Academia breeds the sort of verbosity that is detrimental to success in the private sector.
So I would say, more research, more group projects, but shorter end products. Maybe submit projects in outline/PowerPoint rather than essays. Better yet, do actual presentations: it makes students learn public speaking, and saves professors grading time.
I totally agree with the second phrase while the first one is true in my opinion.
I learn hardly any practical skills like public speaking, debating, writing etc. I think it would be of great value to actually learn these things at university.
At the boutique where i'm doing my internship I hardly use any specific finance knowledge. The only thing I need to know is basic accounting. However, my bosses place a great emphasis writing skills in presentations and visuals, which I have barely been taught.
You know, I just realized maybe we're looking at this the wrong way with respect to classes. If you think about it, 50 years ago, internships didn't exist (or they weren't available to many). People didn't work in finance all through college in order to score that wall street job. Those who didn't study finance could work their way into a firm based on experience. I think the problem may be the fact that UG B-schools exist in themselves now (or are widespread). Some kid thinks "I want to get a wall street job, I want to get ahead, maybe I can take some finance classes and get ahead, and get an internship and get ahead." Then, more and more kids follow, and it doesn't become so special anymore - it becomes expected. Pretty soon, everyone is taking business classes that have no relevance for the job, and people become career-obsessed from the time they're freshmen in college when they should be studying, having fun on the weekend, and having a well-rounded education without being obsessed about a career from day one. I'm thinking we'd all be better off if we didn't try to train for a job we may end up hating and instead just took a well-rounded liberal arts education in math, science, history, politics, etc., then maybe junior year started thinking about where we wanted to end up career-wise. Just some hypothetical thinking. Unfortunately, this world is long gone.
aint got time 4 books i just watch the movie version
@Darknight: Sounds about right. Except how much of that obsessing do you think actually helps you?
The thing is, you have electives for a reason. You can use them to gasp take classes you are actually interested in even though they might hurt your GPA!! Mind-boggling right?
Or open a book. Whatever. Just learn about the world outside of financial theory.
s
I didn't actually obsess over my career. I didnt have an internship and suffered because of it. I did get an offer from a bb though. I'm just pointing out what I see a lot of my friends doing. And you're right about electives, but I'm saying rounded as in having more required LA courses. I did open a book haha. I'm just rambling about the general state of the career search and think it could be better is all. It's getting to the point where people need a sophomore internship to get the junior internship and I just think it's too much.
lol the great minds of WSO are apparently psychologists and evolutionary biologists as well with great understanding of the female psyche.... terrific to see such ignorance yet again.
Hhahaha! Banana!
i learned more about business delegating the work in a complex arson job or divvying the loot after a burglary than i ever did in school.
Relevant to this thread: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023040720045773237540192273….
The reporter is arguing for liberal art education, go study history and philosophy. Seriously? I want a MD from BB telling me how I should plan for my career, not from an English and History major who works at Wall Street Journal. No, thank you Ms. Melissa Korn. You don' t know jack shit about what you are talking.
This is a far more relevant solution:
Just want to mention that I am in no way getting a liberal arts degree, but I did take liberal arts classes as electives. My point is simply that you should learn more than just finance.
Ravenous said finance is about "high stakes competitive learning." I agree and would add that it is also about "high stakes competitive decision making." Will you learn more about making decisions from a class on portfolio management or reading Teddy Roosevelt's autobiography? Will you learn more about our legal system taking securities law or by reading John Locke?
Its not like finance / accounting / econ are useless, its just that the vast majority of the usefulness in these subjects can be summed up in their most basic theories.
Econ: Supply and Demand Fin: Risk correlates with return Accy: Assets = Liabilities + Equity
Unless you are staying in academia, getting too deep into the theory of the business subjects is basically pointless because you are going to throw much of that out / get retrained once you start working.
Some really good stuff is said here i believe, like what illiniPride said. I should act on some of these wise words.
What would be useful?
"Hey kid, here's $10k, and we're dropping you in Las Vegas / Macau / Monte Carlo / etc. Don't come back until you've doubled your money. Oh, and the money's not yours. It's a loan. With 20% monthly interest.
Good luck."
Or other risk-taking activity where you have to mix, among others, game theory, social skills, and quick thinking. None of this MPT BS we're taught in class. Even just being told to sit in front of a computer and make money trading futures or something would be better.
Shit, but I hated my time in Uni. So boring and useless. So glad I'm graduating this semester.
The underlying assumptions regarding education need to be changed. Learning is about self ownership. That's it. No one else can step inside your consciousness and organize things for you. Unfortunately, post-secondary education is more about chasing carrots than anything else.
At my school there seems to be a bit of a divide, everyone is "book smart" but there are the unambitious students who think everything they are learning is going to be useful on the job, and there are the kids who are gunning for high finance who know that the academics is bullshit. It isn't hard to see that college is nothing more than a 6-figure investment that is supposed to pay off when you graduate in the form of a job.
And the competitiveness part, as mentioned earlier in internships, is ridiculous too. Need freshman PWM to get sophomore boutique IB/something else, need that to get BB SA junior year, then only a few of those people get jobs...it's awful.
Not to mention this college/career planning bullshit starts in middle school now. High school was by far the worst 4 years of my life because I was worrying about college and so far college has been miserable too because I'm worrying about my career.
^ This is so true. Junior internships are a relatively new thing - but now since they're standard, you almost have to have a sophomore internship just to get that junior internship. Then you have freshmen on here saying "Should I do PWM this summer?" and I think to myself that this is crazy. I was actually talking about it with an MD at a BB and he lamented the fact that he thinks that in the next 10 years or so sophomore internships will become standard and almost required of people trying to break into a BB.
Aut nobis dolor quia reiciendis commodi. Reiciendis suscipit est molestiae similique. Consequatur nulla deserunt libero officiis est nemo.
Occaecati magnam possimus voluptates a. Et ad nam qui aliquam ab. Qui neque mollitia odio culpa.
Aut perspiciatis blanditiis occaecati et illum. Necessitatibus sunt reprehenderit magnam ex. Tempora aut ipsa officiis hic qui. Ab id et in sunt ullam repellendus. Veritatis architecto autem est et qui.
Hic ipsum ad voluptatibus qui aut id sunt. Qui numquam et sed corporis. At facere quia laborum aliquam reiciendis ducimus. Fugiat non distinctio ea occaecati veniam architecto. Cum tempora omnis in explicabo nostrum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Ea rerum architecto et delectus aut. Omnis animi doloribus dolore debitis natus quae. Veniam aut quisquam quo laboriosam et veritatis.
Magnam nam vero porro sunt repudiandae rem quaerat. Cumque veritatis vero ut ex sunt illum nobis. Aut recusandae enim unde velit.
Accusantium eum atque ipsum nihil. Dolorum autem culpa velit. Dolorem molestiae tempore sunt non aut consequatur.
Quos quibusdam tempora et. Tempore ipsam dolore ipsa. Impedit libero temporibus molestias accusamus illum pariatur.
Est cum ullam similique vitae facere quaerat. Eos et dicta repellendus ut. Aut quisquam culpa nihil eveniet.