Rhodes scholar vs. BB IBD
Would you take a full-time BB IBD job in a good industry group (Citi/CS/BAML, think Industrials/Energy) or a Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford (Economics)? The BB IBD job is probably more relevant to PE/HF, but I feel that a rhodes scholarship could open doors as well
Would the answer change if it were top BB (GS/MS) or elite boutique (Moelis/Lazard/Greenhill) IBD? More justifiable to take that over rhodes? Obviously if its BX restructuring or PE or GS TMT etc. or something ridiculous that's preferable to any scholarship, but otherwise would a rhodes be a smart move over a regular IBD job?
haha, tough one you lucky bastard
Interested in knowing this as well. One person I know of did a few SA stints, took the Rhodes, then came back to work at GS and later a HF.
I'd talk to the bank. Goldman offers deferments for Teach For America - somehow I think a Rhodes would also qualify. And, yes, I would take the scholarship - it is a pretty big deal.
I'd take the scholarship as well. I think it will open many more doors down the line and is definitely very impressive on a resume.
not sure if you are serious?
take the scholarship, even over undergrad BX pe or whatever..
talk with the banks, but dont limit yourself, you will have more/better opps after 2 years at Oxford
congratz, kudos, hats off..
I don't think anyone has actually turned down the rhodes. It truly is a once in a lifetime opportunity.
Myron rolle postponed the nfl for the rhodes. Postponing BB IBD for it should be an easy decision
Yes people have postponed it, but i've never heard of anyone who turned it down outright. There are multiple rhodes scholars who leave oxford after just 1 year to work or go back to school.
Rhodes.
definitely scholarship, even if you can't defer. I'd imagine you can come out on top to most programs with that under your belt. It's a big fucking deal with a lower acceptance rate and a more rigorous application process than a GS analyst position
... but did you get the Rhodes?
1) Some banks will allow you to defer, and if it's so you can take the Rhodes, they may be even more willing, since it looks great for them to have you work for them after.
2) Rhodes is an extremely rare and prestigious opportunity, more so than working in a mid-tier BB's industry group. You can go back and do finance later - I agree the Rhodes will definitely open doors anyways, more so than a "regular" IBD job.
3) Congrats!
Take the Rhodes, is this thread a joke? The US military postpones service for recipients at the academies, never mind postponing the NFL...
Accepting the Rhodes should be one of the easiest decisions a Rhodes scholar has to make.
Congratulations, but come on you should be able to make this decision on your own without any hesitation.
Takes the Rhodes, open much more doors, and when you enter the workforce you'll start with higher pay.
A Rhodes Scholarship is great if you want to go into politics.
But somewhere along the way, I think you lied to yourself with that application. The Rhodes committee genuinely looks for people who are trying to make the world a better place, who show compassion and kindness for others, and to be brutally honest, that's not consistent with the world of New York finance.
Figure out what your values are, and what you want your future to look like. I think you're going to take the BB offer instead. Not because it's more or less prestigious, or better for you, but because it's being honest to yourself. You went through the whole process of bank recruiting without flinching, and that should tell you something about yourself.
Congratulations and good luck to you. Work hard and enjoy a great life.
Illini's second paragraph is absolute gold, especially the last line, and anyone familiar with the Rhodes process should know that.
Which is, among other things, a reason to take the Rhodes. Most importantly, anyone qualified for the Rhodes will end up feeling extremely underutilized in their work in finance. If you're Rhodes caliber, why eat shit in an entry-level finance job? Go change the world, bro...
You guys got around to quoting me before I had a chance to edit! That post was a little more harshly worded than I would have liked- "lie" is a very strong word and I don't think that's appropriate here, but I stand by the overall gist.
Wall Street and Rhodes Scholarship are two opposite ethical systems.
There's a continuum, but anyone who buys into deontological ethics enough to survive on Wall Street cannot honestly take a Rhodes Scholarship. You have to choose one side or the other. I, personally, choose deontological ethics. I would like to think that if I had that high quality of a decision- where I was reasonably assured a $100K/year life no matter which way I went, I'd choose being true to myself, and would therefore take a job on Wall Street.
There is a fundamental conflict between "honesty" and "compassion"; between "fair" and "just". You have to figure out which side you're on. Wall Street is uncompassionate and unfair, but it is honest and just. Rhodes' values are the other way around.
Speaking of honesty, and in the Wall Street interest of full disclosure, I don't have the best record at turning down prestige. I believe in a world where the first can be last and the last can be first, and that prestige shouldn't matter, and I hate the fact that it does. And yet when I had to make a decision on grad school, I made a decision based on the quality of the research, the students, the program- and its prestige- rather than on a fundamental alignment of values. I don't think I regret the decision, and my values can work around it, but I hate that I had to make it.
For IBD vs Rhodes Scholars, the marginal utility of prestige is a lot lower up here and the differences in values are way more fundamental. If you're a utilitarian, you'll hate yourself for choosing banking. If you believe in deontological ethics and facing the harsh, painful truths, you'll hate yourself for choosing the Rhodes Scholarship. And I think the values involved in the decision are so fundamental that you'll regret giving up your grounding.
I wish we could have a world that is both utilitarian and deontologically ethical, but anyone who is qualified to work on Wall Street knows that can never happen, and knows that it's impossible for a smart, honest person to look at the historical record and say it's possible. In order for utilitarianism to work, you have to lie, and you have to abridge the fundamenal rights and dignity of the individual. And in order for deontological ethics to work, in order for people to have rights, you have to let life be unfair and be prepared to do nothing in the face of terrible human suffering (because you often can't do anything without being unjust).
This is heavy stuff to drop on a 21 year old, but this is a very important decision and you need to be equipped with the truth to make it.
So choose wisely, and base it on your values.
This is all BS fro someone who is far less qualified then the OP. There are Rhodes scholars in every walk of life from banking to professional athletics...they chose you because of your qualifications and you have every right to consider the decision in a utilitarian way. You are not committed to dedicating your life to selfless service when you accept the Rhodes...this isnt like becoming a nun and if you turn it down because of some immature notion of not meeting their standard of selflessness you will regret it big-time down the road. The decision is easy: If you do the Rhodes you can have any banking job you want when your done along with just about any other job including those in more "selfless" fields...if u go become a banking analyst your just another banking analyst. Take the Rhodes and figure out your philosophy of life as you go along like everyone else, but dont make a horrible decision because you dont meet some stupid, self-imposed purity standard.
Yes, OP will be more successful because of the Rhodes Scholarship but he will hate himself later for it. At the end of the day, if he has a conscience, taking it will make him less happy, not more happy.
I personally know a few rhodes/marshall scholars. They are obviously smart and talented, but it comes across as hypocritical when these people would spend their college years doing all sorts of non-profit and do-gooder work and then jump into finance/consulting after their rhodes/marshall stint. It sort of makes you wonder whether they were "faking" their passion during college in order to get a prestigious fellowship or whether they had a drastic change of hearts that making a lot of money is their true calling. Having known a few of these guys, they do come across as self-righteous in many ways.
But I can say with experience that making decisions that are a little worse than orthogonal to your values doesn't always make you feel like a good person. We're all equally bad at this as fallen people, but I think the Rhodes Scholar who goes into banking will feel it worse.
I'll leave everyone with Obi-Wan Kenobi:
If you have to choose and can't defer - Rhodes. Easy.
IlliniProgrammer raises some very good philosophical points, but I think he is simply presenting the two ends of the value system spectrum. I'd imagine that the bifurcation is not so clean on the individual level and most people fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. You can be successful on Wall Street even though you have a streak of utilitarianism in your mindset; and you can affect great social change even if you sometimes ascribe to deontological ethics.
You certainly have a lot to think about; but again, you are 21 years old and your values and principles will probably change a little, or a lot, between now and thirty years down the line. If you're truly passionate about banking, then go to Wall Street and knock it out of the park. If you plan to commit your life to public service in one form or another, then go with the Rhodes Scholarship and claim your TIME magazine cover in twenty years.
If you don't have any overwhelming callings your in life right now, I agree with the other posters and think you should take the Rhodes. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity where you will meet some incredible people who may even change the way you see the world. It's only two years long, so if you end up deciding that you'd rather make it rain on the Street, you'll only be 24 years old. If you got into banking once, you will definitely be able to do it again armed with one of the prestigious academic degrees in the world. Cheers and congrats my friend.
I take it you lied on the Rhodes application and told them you want to uplift the underpriviledged communities by handing out unicorns and lolipops. Anywho.
I would suggest taking a week or so to think about your real intentions behind either road you take. If you really want to heal the world and go into politics some day, then take the Rhodes scholarship. If you genuinely love the banking world - fast paced, being a tiny part of huge deals like FB or Groupon,, compensation aside, then I would say banking.
rhodes is such a bigger accomplishment
The fact that this guy is even asking this question I think pretty much confirms that he hasn't been offered the scholarship.
Thank you. This post is clearly hypothetical. Nowhere in his original post is it stated that this is an actual decision he's facing.
I seriously thought people were just joking about the congratulations... Maybe I should start my own thread asking: NASA Mars Exploration Program or Citadel Quantitative Strategies?
Yeah, no way an actual rhodes scholar would post something like this on wso.
I don't like your hypo, to be fair. Citadel quantitative strategies isn't that prestigious.. rentech, de shaw, two sigma, is the holy trinity of the quants.
This. Or he doesn't deserve it.
So from reading the comments, this seems like the best approach:
Ask the banks to defer, take the Rhodes, and if you decide to back out from banking sometime later on then so be it, otherwise go to Wall Street. If they won't let you defer, no matter -- you should be able to get offers a second time anyway. Win-win either way. In the meantime, you'll have a chance to figure out where your values are in.
Definitely take the Rhodes (or Gates, if you get a chance) no matter what. You will meet some exceptional people there, and you will be marked out thereafter as leader material. You will have your pick of employers thereafter...
I disagree with IlliniProgrammer. The correct allocation of capital is what enables modern civilisation to continue. On the other hand, most well meaning bureaucrats trained at the likes of the Harvard Kennedy School end up doing far more damage than any Ken Lay or Angelo Mozilo could ever hope to, affecting the lives of millions of people durably and changing the very culture that makes the United States what it is.
I'd hire a Rhodes Scholar as a consultant. I'd vote for him for elected office (if he were a moderate or a conservative). I would NEVER hire one as a trader.
There's a thousand takes on it. I think the easiest is: compare a bubble like the recent housing bubble in a country like the US, to a bubble in a place like the Soviet Union without markets (other than the balance of trade) to keep a check on it, and the costs to either country of both. Even the bubble riders are adding value.
So which one are you? http://www.rhodesscholarshiptrust.com/rhodes-scholars-elect-class-of-20…
But really, I'm surprised people are taking this guy seriously--though there are definitely some interesting philosophical points being raised to keep this thread going.
Why would this even be on the main page..? Has the content of of this site degraded that much that we have to resort to bs hypothetical questions?
what's the fucking point of this thread? jesus christ. the fuck is wrong with this site
hahahaha, I think this thread is trying to ascertain whether working at Citigroup or doing an Econ Masters makes it easier to get an interview at a hedge fund. Other interesting questions include: which is close enough to a vegetable, sticky buns or swiss cheese? Which culture has sane women, the Indians or the Jews? Where should I do my MBA to make Brady jealous, Fuqua or Yale SOM?
hahha +1
so many hilarious comments in this thread
I'd take the rhodes for exit opps if I was primarily interested in banking for the exit opps, b school etc. I'd take the banking job if I was really interested in PE and wanted to make partner or MD 2 years sooner
IP I am baffled by your posts because you seem to be an otherwise sensible fellow. Ambition and Tiger moms are what drive men to do great things, not inner ethical beliefs. I think most people on this site are just trying to get laid.
Are you seriously trying to argue that bankers and traders don't create value? Somehow making pitchbooks is less virtuous than digging ditches in Kenya? Sure you might feel better, and maybe you'll be able to craft a better HBS essay, but at the end of the day, a rational, introspective man like yourself should be able to figure out what really adds more value.
It always baffles me when people look to Warren Buffet as some sort of saint because he is donating $50b to charity or whatever. Sure, that's nice, but really, I have no idea what the social ROI from his charity will be, but I suspect that the social ROI from all of the successful businesses he has overseen over the years will be many multiples of that number.
I'm sorry, but you're not a bad guy, IP. Regardless of how many idiot #Occupy kids or simple country folks admonish you for working on Wall Street, you're not going to care, because you've already thought about everything they've had to say and found their arguments wanting. If you really thought you were doing harm to the world, I'm guessing that you would stop.
I would take the Rhodes scholarship
You've laid out options A and B, what is option C?
getting laid haha
I fucking love the douchbaggery of WSO. Actually though, my love goes out to all of you other prestige whores
No Rhodes scholar is posting on WSO and I agree with IP nor will any of them look to chase finance or succed in finance. I am sure you will find a lot of "Rhodes scholar finalist" in the finance world, but that is the cap.
Not true at all. I know several rhodes scholars who did HBS after oxford and are now in finance. I also know a marshall scholar who did harvard jd/mba and now at a very well-known hedge fund that makes wso posters jizz their pants.
@EURCHFParity, not just making the world a better place but also "compassionate"? Compassionate means telling the idiot pension fund manager the truth. That he should quit his job running the pension fund and go back to working for his uncle Vinny dumping dead bodies somewhere, and avoid screwing a bunch of hardworking teamsters out of their pensions.
Look, if you have a Rhodes scholar who claims arbing pension funds is the way to go and that it's consistent with the values he claimed to ascribe to two years ago to work for you, you deserve whatever results you get. Me personally? That hungry engineer from Purdue is looking like a better choice.
LOL!
If the average pension fund manager is a retard, tough for him and his trustees. Let his capital be reallocated. I do think most of the value destruction in that space is more a consequence of government action (e.g. distortion of market prices via regulation - e.g. insurance - or outright price manipulation - e.g. housing post-Clinton, fiat currencies). In the olden days your PFM would just buy his equities and bond mix, collect his average upper middle class salary, and throw out those young usptarts with crazy ideas. He can't afford to do this today because of volatility in both asset classes, so he's become prime game, but I don't think the fault lies with the predators in that pond, but with those who chucked him in it.
When [big bank] sales guys came to us proposing our CFO this amazing structured FI deal whose main USP was "this amazing index we created, which we don't really know/can't really tell you how it works but should sort of mimic the S&P" we let them pay us a delicious and expensive lunch and smiled and nodded and went back to our business. Warren Buffett, the Swiss banks and PFMs mostly had the same attitude during the late 90s which avoided major capital losses in 1999-2001.
Kinda went off on a tangent, but to your point I would answer that a Rhodes scholar would not waste his time figuring out how to screw clients, and my previous comments would be more oriented towards a capital management position on the buy side. I do think someone with an understanding of politics - beyond having read Friedman and Hayek, or Keynes and Marx - will be better at understanding the world from a macro POV than a fresh MFin/MBA grad whose previous experience was in the US corporate world.
With respect to your last paragraph, aren't a lot of trading jobs even on macro desks becoming more technical? It seems like quants and algorithms are taking over the entire trading universe. A princeton mfin grad would have more technical skill sets at his disposal than a harvard kennedy grad, who may have a more comprehensive knowledge base, but doesn't have the technical know how to add value to most hedge funds and banks.
Traders bring efficiency to a market in a immediate way, resulting in the outcome coming to hold before it may have without their help. Unlike the mafia, they do not let their victim squirm and keep earning, they take all the profit upfront and force the expected outcome.
Soros a left-wing/social thinker did just that and many could say if he did not force that outcome to come sooner than later the consequences would be much worse. That is just one example.
Define technical. My colleagues outsourced all that stuff. Being able to price an exotic product is not THAT much of an edge. A general understanding of why "stuff" is "overpriced" or "underpriced", together with some awareness of how long "that can go on", is the essence of a successful macro trader in the long term. In the short term, that PhD in finance/econ might land you a job for 2-3 years and then you're outdated, if you haven't bothered learning the essence of the job. Quoting Taleb there, not from his recent popular books but his much, much better Dynamic Hedging (probably one of the best books on the essence of vol trading available).
Regarding technical know-how, there isn't that much. I saw some pretty complex volatility trades and it always boiled down to maybe 1st year undergrad calculus, and understanding the wording. The rest - the reason you would put on such a position - is MUCH harder to "grasp" intuitively and cannot be taught in an MFin.
I also doubt a Princeton MFin would really know how to program (beyond the most basic OO stuff) unless he was a CS undergrad.
I think the best analogy is that it's a "language" that you can learn that gives you access to certain strategies and markets. The stuff in an MFin is like learning Japanese - complete accentless fluency with cultural understanding gives you a small edge in the 1980s (but as many proved, wasn't necessary to making money there anyway), but today is fairly useless unless you really, really love Tokyo to the extent that you want to live there, and are too young to get a lateral promotion into a US banking group's local office as a Director (older folks don't need to know the local speak). On the other hand, a basic knowledge of English opens you the entire world. In the same vein, learning good German as a French or Spanish citizen can be a way out of your rotting country into Zurich or Frankfurt, the pay is not as good as New York but it's easier to dig yourself a cosy spot.
I agree with the gist of what you are saying. However, some of the best performing and most consistent hedge funds in the world are quant funds. Macro funds have been getting killed over the last few years. The problem with macro is that in order to generate consistent returns, you have to be both right in terms of your general thesis (the finance, economics, and politics behind it) AND get the timing perfectly right as well. Nearly impossible for anyone to be that accurate consistently. This is why guys like seth klarman think macro is a long-term losing proposition.
Meanwhile, quant funds like rentech are killing it because they can use sophisticated strategies to exploit any inefficiency out there in the markets and be market neutral while doing so. My point is that there's a reason why quants are so highly coveted by banks and hedge funds and why top finance masters programs have gotten so selective lately. They do bring to the table a vey practical skill set that can be used to generate value almost right away. In sharp contrast, a harvard kennedy grad can bring very little value unless he had prior finance experience (and if you worked in finance, why in god's green earth would you do harvard kennedy?)
The same thing was said and written many times in 2006 right before the quant unoverse got destroyed and macro outperformed...strategy performance goes in cycles and in periods of low volatility macro tends to struggle and more short-vol-type strategies which include most of the quant universe tend to outperform. Its no more complicated then that.
We're working on Kalman filters and MDPs. We just had a competition with 150 grad students in CS and EE at Princeton and two MFinners came in the top five. Princeton is not quite as good as UIUC or Berkeley at CS overall, but we're in a dead heat for #1 in Theory with MIT and Cornell.
So, yes, this stuff is getting automated, and the money is going to folks who know how to automate this stuff well, and who can also talk about kernel regressions and the nuances of Gaussian GPDs and Clayton copulas while they build an MDP.
Gain technical skill. Gain an ability to accept and face the brutal realities of life. A Rhodes Scholarship gets you prestige but it doesn't really get you what it takes to survive in the financial markets.
How many of you can program comfortably in any variant of APL?
Look, I'm not saying you won't make any money, or that the skillset is useless. Really, my worldview is based on my own experience and joining the faint dots that I witnessed in 10+ countries and 10+ companies and counting, spanning about as many industries.
I will always remember my boss cleaning JP on a product they had invented. They came to us knowing our appetite for crazy exotic stuff, we priced it using a standard industry tool modified by one of our risk guys, who had basic VBA skills. My boss had zero technical knowledge - he probably doesn't know what alt + F11 does and if he was to press it, he'd ask me to "get him back to excel". He did trade equity derivs all his life in 4 cities, though, and ran a large desk for most of that. He took a position at the price offered, and 2 months later JP came back begging us to go back on the price. It was a bitch to get out of of course, no liquidity and the spread seemed to suddenly equal our P, but we waited out their huge spread and took delivery at a massive profit.
Since then, although I acknowledge that some programming skills can definitely be helpful in finance as elsewhere (I have personally saved hundreds if not thousands of man hours with basic scripts and free tools) I realized that what made a great trader was not technical ability or knowledge of the tools, but the usual stuff that's worked for Honma and Livermore - an understanding of what causes price movements encompassing everything from valuation to psychology. An old dude with grey hair and 2 kids, who doesn't know what recursion means, cleaned the floor with some of the best and most aggressive quants in the market (he did it often enough that I did not extrapolate from a single data point, before you start saying the plural of anecdotes isn't data). You can of course make some money temporarily constantly changing your game to arb whatever inefficiencies happen to come up when markets change tools or when market participants do not understand tools. You can even, as Bridgewater and Klarman both do in their own way, combine a value approach with an extreme understanding of tools to make enormous coin. I just know that had I stayed in the game, I'd rather try and understand the various forces that paints politicians in a corner, and the errors made by the biggest players in the most liquid markets. It's just more fun. And in that respect, spending a year or two thinking hard about what goes on in the heads of world leaders, their advisors and their executors, and how they cope with the grinding adjustment of their academic dreams and their electorate's expectations to the reality of financing said dreams, sounds more fun and useful than the same time breeding maths and CS to automate and refine the thinking of others.
Put it a simpler way: the option costs 50, your model says it means vol is at 40. What matters is not whether it's really at 45 or 35, but whether it's going to 80, and why it might not. Same as "margin of safety" in value funds. Pick your battles, etc.
I'm not going to waste your time in a long post. Rhodes Scholar over some regular IBD stint. Build a solid intellectual capital before jumping at a chance to make a few hundred thousand.
My Rabbi's son was in a similar position a few years ago, he chose the Rhodes Scholarship and has never regretted it.
This is a troll post. No one who gets a Rhodes scholarship could ask such a ridiculous question.
There's no way anyone in their right minds would turn down Rhodes. This thread is a joke.
In case this isn't a joke...take Rhodes, ask for deferred entry to that bank or just get into a better one after you come back from Oxford.
Not sure why you guys are putting the Rhodes on such a pedestal. Sure, it's a great achievement but for someone who is interested in finance and is seeking the preftigious financial career path (2 yrs M&A -> Buyside -> Greatness), I'm not sure what additional value the Rhodes scholarship adds except delaying that path by another two years.
I can see why it would be a dumb question if OP really did care about changing the world and other liberal BS but given that he doesn't, I don't find it a ridiculous question at all. If I were in your shoes OP and it was GS/MS/BX, I'd take the banking offer. But given your offer is at a less preftigious firm, I'd probably do the Rhodes and try to use that to get into a more preftigious firm.
Then again, I'd never apply for the Rhodes even if I could tick all the boxes.
The hypocrisy on this site is quite amusing. People talk down on preftige whores here all the time, yet the choice of "Rhodes" in this dilemma is an affirmation of your true preftige whoring fatihs.
I agree with this 100%. But too many idiots are only interested in finance for the prestige anyway. The standard path -- going to a prestigious university > BB > Buyside is the post graduation path that 20% of HYP grads take and I don't think that it's due to "passion" or whatever (a lot of non econ majors end up on wall street as well). Obviously people that are like this will favor the Rhodes (another prestige badge) over a BB job which is less prestigious even if said BB job will prepare them better for the future. And to the people who mentioned the rhodes preparing them for a future in politics - wtf does that have to do with finance? People interested in politics should go to law school or join a think tank or something.
The Rhodes is a great intellectual opportunity, if it is utilized properly and helps the scholar explore different avenues in business or whatever else. It's a tremendous waste if the scholar merely takes easy classes and parties it up for a couple of years just for the prestige.
Look, political leaders aren't that tough to model; they are fairly predictable- perhaps more predictable than statistical methods in programming. Argentina is the perfect case in point. Greece, Egypt, and Spain aren't that far behind. And when the going gets tough, the world doesn't elect Rhodes scholars. They elect grassroots populists, and the world retrenches back to nationalism, and hopefully that's as far as it needs to retrench.
The world is going to be extremely tough over the next thirty years.
So, you predicted correctly that EURUSD would never break its floor in the last 2 years, that Trichet's spine would break, that EURCHF would be pegged (I will forever bear the shame of that one in the form of my forum name), that Rajoy would get an amazing deal for his Spain bailout, you collected 20k on your bet that Obama would get reelected, and you know in advance how the Chinese's various SWFs are fighting each other's political battles. Not to mention you knew they'd drain the corn market. And you were long argie USD bonds, since Kirchner was so predictable.
All I'm saying is that whilst an MFin is a great place to teach you the tools, they won't teach you to trade. If the professors knew how to trade, they wouldn't be professors. Cf LTCM.
This is rich comedy, well done OP
@Illini
are the MDPs really that powerful?
Right now they're good enough to adapt trading strategies to changing market conditions and really mitigate strategy decay.
Here is where we are right now:
http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=f5d922d97e345aa1
That's what I meant by learning Haskell - being a competent and comfortable builder in that language. You can "learn" lisp in 10 seconds, really, not many primitives at all, but that's like saying knowing the letters of the alphabet and their pronunciation in various syllables means you have learnt English. I know cyrillic, and dobre dien and dasvedania tavaresh, it doesn't mean I can speak Russian.
Considering I have seen people make market competitive code within weeks of being introduced to C++ (in options market making shops) I disagree with your assessment of the skill required as a builder.
More importantly, "you can't trust someone who claims they're trying to make the world a better place and then goes into trading" might have some real life examples. If somebody truly believes in the power of the market and its function as being the most important there is in human civilisation, conceivably with a little twist of personal philosophy this man could work in trading "to make the world a better place". In practice, these men do not exist because a smart rational man rapidly acquires ethical selfishness so such a man would probably become a trader for the upside and the fun rather than the good of undefined "others". Also in practice, it does not matter what a man believes or how he speaks so long as the numbers at the end of the month are sufficiently juicy, and legally so.
If second guessing politicians is so easy, why are the best guys in the game, like Kovner, hanging their coat?
I'm talking about the full use of the language- OO, subclassing and function overrides, data structures; where hashmap is implemented, threading- where mutex locks and monitors are; wait/notify; the stuff a professional needs to know will take a week or two to learn in a new language. That's all mere syntax.
Kovner is an example of someone from politics who makes it in finance. Manmohan Singh is an example of someone from finance who makes it in politics. Some people are just smart. That doesn't mean they're ethical or that you should trust them with your money.
.
Take the Rhodes. If you ever want to leave finance (which is more likely than not), then it will be more beneficial than a stint as an Analyst at a bank.
(Assuming this isn't just a troll job)
^^^i have no vendetta i just think you give consistently horrible advice including in this thread. And if all you want is a comfortable retirement you can be a public employee (cop, fireman, sanitiation, whatever), work 20 years in a 9-5 job and have a very solid pension and retirement...i have considered it an attractive option myself at times but if you go into finance with this goal you are wasting time and money on education.
Nostrum cum facere nulla minus distinctio provident sequi. Enim nam harum commodi. Reprehenderit et ut dolores deleniti placeat molestiae velit. Eum et aut voluptatem aperiam.
Porro rerum laboriosam sed dolore. Minima esse consequuntur sit eveniet officia. Cupiditate minus aut earum iste incidunt reprehenderit.
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...
Unde sed natus numquam illo at dignissimos. Quos iure blanditiis illum fugit eaque voluptate.
Rerum laboriosam laborum rerum recusandae omnis. Omnis architecto error dolorum voluptas quia. Similique sit in esse error ut perspiciatis voluptatibus quae.
Eaque dolores quia sit quisquam laboriosam neque. Recusandae minima rerum commodi et. Dolorem neque sit sit quis illum ut. Molestiae perspiciatis soluta ea excepturi.
Aut consequatur molestias reiciendis officiis beatae quo voluptates. Laboriosam ut ad tempore omnis. Ut voluptatem odio asperiores accusamus. Consequuntur voluptatem est officiis ab sed et. Et magni pariatur aspernatur sint et fugiat. Recusandae ducimus vel voluptas unde ut.
Et quia quos nemo at mollitia. Fugit consequatur et est fuga adipisci. Nisi laborum repudiandae suscipit nihil aut. Dolore non aut odit ullam sequi saepe. Nihil molestias consequatur odio animi aut ipsum. Ut et similique occaecati officia accusamus. Commodi magni voluptatem minus fugiat nisi odit.
Nulla nostrum ipsa beatae eos. Exercitationem voluptas quisquam libero recusandae qui qui illo excepturi. Beatae id odio quia sequi sunt qui omnis enim.
Omnis qui modi consequatur quia veritatis. Inventore enim non voluptate praesentium rerum. Quia consequatur aut ut fugit tempora laudantium sequi ut. Eligendi vel necessitatibus quisquam minima cum. Unde dolor nulla voluptatem. Minima veniam vel et sint accusamus quasi.
Autem enim quia asperiores sunt. Qui quidem quaerat possimus maiores illum. Ipsam cupiditate saepe ipsa soluta. Enim maxime asperiores dolores autem enim. Omnis harum non est illo quis totam reiciendis sit. Et similique iusto et autem sequi voluptate sed.
Ex dolorem quae autem praesentium aspernatur. Fugit qui voluptas deleniti ut eos eaque at. Asperiores voluptatem dignissimos voluptates veniam consequuntur.