The HR for trading is full of idiots

tuneman's picture
Rank: Senior Monkey | 85

May sound like sour grapes, but I find it hilarious how capriciously they look for potential traders.

Ive heard a couple stories of undergrads, even art history majors, simply getting into trading at a BB simply because they go to a top 5. I would have thought trading was different when it comes to this, but apparently its not.

While I have a undergrad in physics, masters in finance, am taking 2 courses, 1 from a actual successful hedgefund manager, the other a former head of derivatives at major oil company, banks and other hfs would rather take a much less qualified person from a school thats "ranked" in the top 10.

Its a free country, they can do what they want, but the should definitely not boast about hiring the best and the brightest. Its simply not true.

What else is funny is how impressive they are if the kid has a ameritrade account and spent some school time investing in stocks. Especially sell side, this has a 0 impact as his skill as a trader. Most people dont even understand the difference between trader and speculating/investing. Its hilarious

So here I am, someone who actually understands black Sholes, NOT just memorizes it, jobless simply because of the name of my school, and not my actual knowledge and talent.

Comments (90)

Nov 21, 2007

It absolutely infuriated me when I watched a clip on Goldman Sach's website of a chick from Harvard who said,"I never heard of trading before but they taught me." I was so pissed off I almost broke my computer. Does Goldman actually think some English major from Harvard is going to be a stud trader. I can't emphasize enough how clueless this chick came off in the video.

Nov 21, 2007

I'm not a trader, but I certainly share your frustration coming from a school that for some reason gets no respect on the street. It's absolutely ridiculous that across various divisions they take liberal arts grads from top 10 over finance guys from lets say top 25. I'm not ripping on ivy liberal arts grads, but I know a few who got jobs ahead of me with much lower gpas, and who got into finance to "try it out" and collect a paycheck.

It is what it is - you just have to put in 10 times as much effort to land the job. Tuneman, if you have an MBA, shouldn't you have much more latitude? I plan on using an MBA as a reset button because I've been completely disregarded based on my undergrad degree.

Nov 21, 2007

Kisses Yale diploma

Nov 22, 2007

Maybe those gilrs were really hot. There are a lot of hot people in S&T vs. IBD

Nov 22, 2007
elaine528:

Maybe those girls were really hot. There are a lot of hot people in S&T vs. IBD

Yeah, thats because hot people get hired into IBD, but after 2 years of 15 hour days in front of excel and takeout lunch and dinner, they tend to not look so hot anymore.

Does the phrase "banker's butt" mean anything to you? :)

Learn More

Boost your resume and land a finance job by passing the FINRA SIE. 264 pages & 1981 smart flashcards written by a former 8X top Fidelity instructor. Try it for 0 bananas here.

Nov 22, 2007

this is exactly why they consider these guys and not you tuneman: if you are so full of yourself and think you know everything, you're bound to blow up some day. If you trust your models blindly, you're bound to blow up too.
If you're modest, admit that you know nothing but show passion to learn, and show a sound intuition about how markets work then you're suitable for the trading floor.
Maybe you're more suitable for a quant role.
And btw, people most times don't give a shit if you follow the stock markets and invest for your PA (at least for FI roles), so guys that do that have no advantage at all.

    • 1
Nov 22, 2007
Dmod:

this is exactly why they consider these guys and not you tuneman: if you are so full of yourself and think you know everything, you're bound to blow up some day. If you trust your models blindly, you're bound to blow up too.
If you're modest, admit that you know nothing but show passion to learn, and show a sound intuition about how markets work then you're suitable for the trading floor.
Maybe you're more suitable for a quant role.
And btw, people most times don't give a shit if you follow the stock markets and invest for your PA (at least for FI roles), so guys that do that have no advantage at all.

you seem to have a hard time reading. I never boasted about anything, those are my qualifications.

Nor did I ever say I blindly followed black sholes, however, noting how I just dont memorize mathematical recipes, and actually understand where they come from is important. I believe it was noteworthy for my post, boasting was NOT my intention.

I do not admit that I know nothing, thats stupid. I do know something, DUE to my willingness to learn. I am by no means trying to boast.

Those are my qualifications, and from everything I have experienced, these are triumphed by virtually any undergrad degree of a top 10 school, in the eyes of IB traders.

To note- my friend who worked on the floor for a little bit said the women traders made no excuses about what/who they did to get the job

To calvin- the masters of finance isnt really like the MBA, its more designed for recent grads, and I think instead of it being a reset button, its generally looked up as a kick in the pants to move you up the ladder 1 or 2 spots.

Nov 22, 2007

ok...i dont intend to fight with you dude. I hope my advice would be appreciated but seems you're very bad tempered. Anyway, it's not a matter if yo uconvince anybody on this board, but it's a matter whether you convince anybody having the power to recruit. Good luck.

Nov 22, 2007

tuneman ---

I have had similar experiences in the past.

It is sometimes worth abstracting it a bit further...

For instance... Why would you want to work for a firm that believes an individual that majored in art history at a Top 5 is superior to someone with your background?

I realize that you are talking about the HR people specifically... but still.

Several years back I became comfortable with the fact that I am not large company material.

There are tons of opportunities at smaller shops. And if you shine... you have the opportunity to make partner (or equivalent) in a much shorter timeframe.

Good luck!

Nov 22, 2007

Well I am on the other side of the table now... trading analyst at BB bank. I am more like you guys.. into the markets and felt I was much more qualified than my peers and got the job. The reality of the situation is that you will be trained and molded when you get there. Although I have a finance background... I am still just raw material to them. At the analyst level they are looking looking more for raw talent and less for actual skills than many of you think. Regardless of how good you guys think you are, you will realize that you know NOTHING if/when you land that trading analyst job.

Nov 22, 2007

tuneman - a good first step would be to learn how to spell "Black-Scholes"

you've misspelled it multiple times in this thread so I know it isn't just a typo

Nov 22, 2007

a) In BB's any position you're applying for at the undergrad or even MBA level, 99% of what you need to know you will learn in training or on the job . . . there have been studies that show that undergraduate music majors have the highest success rate as finance professionals.

b) In the end you have people on the inside advocating for hires from their school, so if you don't have a strong contingent pulling for you it's even tougher to stand out in the minds of the guys who make the final decision.

Nov 22, 2007

Would you happen to have a copy of the study that found music majors to have the highest success rates as finance professionals? I'd be interested to see what deductions they drew from their study. (i.e. - possible reasons for music majors being more successful)

--------
Right now this is a job. If I advance any higher in this company, then this would be my career. And um... Well, if this were my career, I'd have to throw myself in front of a train.

Nov 22, 2007

Absolutely true, and that's why it's been hell for me trying to land a spot. My school has a weak presence out in NY.

And I understand the logic behind taking all majors from Ivies and the like. I know my finance degree doesn't qualify me for the job, but it does lay a good foundation. What I was commenting on was the fact that a lot of ivy kids go into banking because they have easy access via recruiting, not necessarily because they have a strong interest in the finance arena.

That's pretty frustrating for a guy like me.

  • movetofinance
  •  Nov 22, 2007
calvin:

Absolutely true, and that's why it's been hell for me trying to land a spot. My school has a weak presence out in NY.

And I understand the logic behind taking all majors from Ivies and the like. I know my finance degree doesn't qualify me for the job, but it does lay a good foundation. What I was commenting on was the fact that a lot of ivy kids go into banking because they have easy access via recruiting, not necessarily because they have a strong interest in the finance arena.

That's pretty frustrating for a guy like me.

yeah, but why do the banks care if you like finance? if the ivy kids are smarter/more successful at the job despite little interest. i think that's the case, since these banks seem to go back to get even more diverse classes and if they weren't, then the banks would go to lower tier schools with business students who they think might be interested...

from their perspective, the cost-benefit analysis suggest keeping recruiting focused on the ivies is efficient.

Nov 22, 2007

I don't even think a finance degree lays a good foundation for a career on wall street. You will grow up a bit and learn about business... but in reality you will probably learn 99.9% of everything on the job.

Nov 22, 2007

Who cares if a person has an interest in finance or not?

The only question is whether they have an aptitude for finance.

--------
Right now this is a job. If I advance any higher in this company, then this would be my career. And um... Well, if this were my career, I'd have to throw myself in front of a train.

Nov 22, 2007

And I think you're foolish to say an interest in finance is negligble. Passion is an important piece of the package in my opinion. No one wants to work with a kid who's miserable day in and day out because he realized he hates work. It also undoubtedly affects the quality of work.

Nov 22, 2007

All I said was it's frustrating for someone like me with a strong interest in finance. I am not evaluating from the bank's perspective.

Also, I don't think Ivy kids are absolutely smarter/more successful at the job either. We can all agree that banking doesn't require supreme intellect, and you have to remember that there are a lot of people who have the grades but can't afford private school.

Really not trying to start one of those debates. I suppose the system works this way for a reason, but I believe the rigidness of recruiting leaves untapped talent on the market.

Nov 23, 2007

I understand your frustration, but I think my point still stands. You're right that the system might be flawed in that it weeds out passionate folks, but again, that seems to detract from what's important to the firms that hire these kids.

These firms care only about talent. Talent is surely affected by interest and passion, but if I were in the firms' position, I'd hire a superstar finance whiz who is miserable over a mediocre finance person who would feel fulfilled by the work.

Now, of course, there's always the chance that this miserable finance whiz could leave after a few years, whereas the mediocre finance person would happily churn away for the next twenty years, but then it just becomes a question of what the expected return would be on the two individuals based on their expected stay at the firm.

And if you're right in that the finance whiz's misery affects their work, to such a degree that it makes the finance whiz a worse worker than the mediocre finance person, then surely the finance whiz will get fired. (This is trading, after all, meritocracy generally trumps over cronyism.)

I agree with the OPs original contention (and possibly yours) that it's hard to make an ex ante determination as to who will make a good trader/financier and who will not, but again, passion may be a necessary condition and yet not a sufficient one. The only condition that is necessary is talent because that, and not passion, is the only thing that determines the firm's return on its investment.

Now, it's a whole other discussion whether kids from "better" schools with worse GPAs have the necessary talent, but it seems like the firms that are hiring these kids seem to think so.

(Note: In no way was I insinuating that you or the OP are "mediocre finance" people. I was just using that as a abstract hypothetical in my response since you were championing passion for the field of finance as a determining factor.)

--------
Right now this is a job. If I advance any higher in this company, then this would be my career. And um... Well, if this were my career, I'd have to throw myself in front of a train.

Nov 23, 2007

I hear ya merkhet, it's just tough being on the margin. I was referring to banking by the way, not trading. Something tells me it's a bit more transparent who's underperforming on the trading side.

Nov 23, 2007

Look.

You take people from the BEST fucking schools possible, period. You don't take top 25 when you can take top 5 private historically incredible schools. if a mothafucka could get into harvard with his 4,3 gpa in highschool and 1490 sat (out of 1600) then that's proof the mothafucka has got what it takes.

Don't bitch, don't moan, keep getting degrees and you will get your position. Look to the logic of the BB's. Use objectivity rather than skepticism as your basis and you will understand.

I pity the mothafuckin fools and i'm drunk as shit right now. lol.

Nov 23, 2007

I was told something along this line - If you hire a kid from Harvard and he sucks, and someone blames you, you can always say, "Well he was from Harvard." Now if he is from Georgia Southern or something, it's your fault hiring the kid without much of a track record. In the same time, I was told students from non-targets work much harder and don't take things for granted. And if you can make the necessary connections and sell yourself, you can do it too. Not like it never happened before.

Nov 23, 2007

Trading requires neither a masters in finance nor a physics degree. I completely understand why they take arts majors (like myself) into markets instead of someone who studied finance at a mediocre university. Trust me, there are people who studied philosophy in my analyst class who have a natural aptitude for trading, while there are econ/finance/math majors who are slogging through their first year. What you like to study has no relationship to what you're good at in a job, if you can't realize that then just enjoy being bitter, it won't get you anywhere though.

Nov 23, 2007

fp175 - there is a big difference between cash products and derivs.

Nov 23, 2007

Ficcster is right on the money. This bunk about "arts majors" is really making me laugh. I know maybe 1 arts major in S&T and she is in equity sales.

Nov 23, 2007

most of the non finance majors at my bb in trading majored in econ/engineering/physics/math...there arent really any art majors or music majors as you speak of

also as other people have stated, anyone can go to a crap school and take finance classes..you have to be very smart to go to an ivy or other top school..smart people can learn and will do well....its a dog eat dog world out there, if you cant get it this time around work somewhere not as glamorous, work hard kill the gmat and go to a top 5 mba

Nov 23, 2007

I am not in cash sales and am actually sitting on a structuring desk at the moment.

Nov 23, 2007

Which product?

Nov 24, 2007

That's life, I didn't go to a target. Far from it actually, and I understand why somebody from Harvard would go in front of me. The thing I also understand is that there are many morons at Harvard as well, and they won't get in banking. It's hard even at the top schools to get a banking gig. Banks higher people that have the power to learn fast, and that are smart. Why bother looking at A-hole tech in the middle of no where when they have already good schools that have done part of the screening for them?
I studied Finance, so what? All that shit I studied can be learned in two months.
Now if you really want to get into banking, and you come from a small school, just go for a Masters degree. Tuff it out on the GMAT during your senior year of undergraduate, get a really high GPA, and prove to a really good school that you have what it takes; banks will look at you then...
And on top of that, don't be bitter because that won't get you anywhere. Be happy for the people at Harvard, at least they will be able to reimburse their loans.
Good luck with everything, and remember your school is nothing if you don't do any networking. Wether you are at Harvard or A-hole tech.

I want to work now! No, really. I want those 100+ hours/week.

Nov 24, 2007

Thanks for all the responses-

I hope you didn't take this as a complaining thread- They are free to hire anyone they want. However, do not advertise that you are going for the smartest, most quantitative, well suited people in the world. Even though they advertise it, this isn't NASA, they aren't hiring rocket scientists.

Now like one poster mentioned, going to smaller trading firms might be more for people like me. Which is exactly what im doing. (Honestly I don't know if the politics and monkey business in ibanking is for me).

I also disagree that someone with a 4.3 GPA at high SATs shows they have what it takes. Id rather you show knowledge in the subject matter and general quick thinking aptitude. The SATs are a test just like anything else that you can study for. But they have 100000 aps, so how the heck can I expect them to intelligently sort through every single one of them. Its most likely a ridiculous request.

I guess my point is simply hard work isnt enough. perhaps I haven't worked hard enough, however getting a very quant degree, trying to network tons, and getting a masters in finance hasn't been enough. Perhaps I simply need more patience though.

To "poppingmycollar" (you have got to me kidding me), just because I misspell words does not mean I am ignorant on its meaning. Your statement has more to do with your failure to utilize logic rather than my erudition. I misspell a lot of words , however I still understand them and can utilize them.

Nov 24, 2007
tuneman:

To "poppingmycollar" (you have got to me kidding me), just because I misspell words does not mean I am ignorant on its meaning. Your statement has more to do with your failure to utilize logic rather than my erudition. I misspell a lot of words , however I still understand them and can utilize them.

Put down the thesaurus - you aren't convincing anyone here that you know what you are talking about.

Honest advice: have someone who is a native english speaker and a good writer take a hard look at your resumes/cover letters. While having quantitative skills is important, being able to communicate effectively is valued much more.

Nov 24, 2007

No offense tuneman, but I have never seen any major bank advertise that they hire the "most quantitative." People with 3.5+ GPA at Harvard/Princeton/etc, who got basically perfect grades and SATs in high school, and who made it through the screening process at the bank to actually get an offer, ARE the best and the brightest.

Is it fully inclusive? No. Is there a finance major at Baruch College who is smarter than someone at Harvard? Of course, there must be a few. But the reality is that the biggest concentration of the smartest and most capable young people are at the best universities.

I went to a target, and to be honest from friends I knew who went to easier colleges, I could have gotten the same GPA studying something a finance degree at my state university.

Nov 24, 2007

FP is pretty much completely right. I got a 1500+ SAT, 5s on a ton of aps, high gpa, lots of clubs/leadership and on and on and on in high school. Went to a 'non-target' thats supposedly by far the best in the region with really high standards. A lot of my friends went to top schools and are quite successful there.
Bottom line: I know what kind of intelligence top-tier schools screen for, and while many of the kids here might be 'smart' by some standards, they just don't cut it.
Now, keep in mind that this school is huge. There are plenty of very smart people here. A few of them are both very smart and very motivated. If I was HR would i recruit here? Hell no. Why waste money and time trying to find the relatively small percentage of sufficiently smart, motivated kids at this school when Harvard already screens for me.
Consider how hard it is to even figure out who's smart at this school. You have no idea if these kids are really smart or their classes are that easy. A school teaches at the intelligence level of its students, so to be academically stellar at any university just means you're smarter than the other students. Being smarter than the students at this school doesn't mean you'd hold your own against harvardians.
Case in point: math is arguably my worst subject (i'm not horrible, but not awesome either), but I can smoke most people in advanced math classes here while working on my triple major. I'm sure a lot of harvard art majors could do the same, though they would get their butts kicked by harvard math. If I was at harvard or yale , I would have choosen a less quantitative major (history, poli sci) so I could play on my comparative advantage (and because i'd still stand a chance at getting into ib).

Nov 24, 2007

HR is full of morons, you can not stress that enough!

Nov 24, 2007

It's all relative. I grew up in Princeton my whole life, had 15-18 friends go there, and love it to death. But for someone like me at a non-target, breaking into a BB is tough enough. For a lot of my friends at Princeton, the bitching starts when they cant get into Blackstone etc, but have offers from every other BB. At my school in the midwest, people are lucky to even get an interview at PoDunk Bank.

Realize there is always someone below and above you, and that complaining or whatever won't help you. I realize the frustration of going to a non-target, but with some networking and whatnot, you may get somewhere. I know a lot of friends at Princeton that may or may not deserve that BB offer, but thats life.

Nov 26, 2007

I love that if you don't go to an ivy, then you must go to A-hole state.

Nov 26, 2007

Ivy's in the long run are overrated. Studies have shown that the income gaps between ivy grads and us "humanoids" get substantially narrower as time goes by.

They have a high concentration of successful graduates because often times these students are the most motivated (not necessarily smartest or brightest) and many of the most extremely successful individuals usually have that coveted "way in" (such as having a last name like Clinton, or Hilfiger).

So if you dont go to an ivy and dont get into a major bank the first year out of undergrad...relax! Looking at most of the profiles of investment bankers, hedge fund managers, venture capitalists, and traders youll notice that many of them didnt even start their career in investments. There is more than one road to ibanking, despite what people will lead you to believe on this board.

20 years from now youll look back and wish you enjoyed yourself in college rather than worried about getting into X bank or regretting that you didnt apply to harvard.

Nov 26, 2007

i'd like to see those studies please

Nov 26, 2007

"20 years from now youll look back and wish you enjoyed yourself in college rather than worried about getting into X bank or regretting that you didnt apply to harvard."

So true...I know this and yet I still cant stop stressing about breaking into this field.

Nov 26, 2007

I go to a non-target and consider myself a top candidate at my school, so I'll give my two cents. Two years ago, I would have been all over the bandwagon of state school people deserve it just as much as ivies and how state schools have a ton of smart people that just couldn't afford an ivy (me being one of those people). However, my view has drastically changed as of late and now I fully support the "hire from the best schools, first and foremost" logic.

Here's why . . . When I first started college, my university grouped all the honors students together for their first year or so, therefore almost all of my classes were filled with people with top ACT/SATs and GPAs so I felt like I was surrounded by incredibly bright people (who mostly chose a full-ride to a state school over taking out loans to attend a much better private school). But now that I'm in my upper level finance and accounting classes, I completely understand the banking logic because my classes are filled with people who are interested in finance and talk the talk, know all the jargon, read the journal, etc. but they are just dumb. Sure they might have 3.5s or above, but honestly they just aren't that bright. I have so many classes this semester with interested finance people, who talk about getting banking jobs and being HF managers, who study for an entire week for an exam that I study for in one night, they get low Bs and I ace them.

The point is that now that I'm out of the highly concentrated honors classes I understand the banking system because there are a lot of dumb, and we're talking really dumb, people that can get good grades (they kiss a lot of ass, get bonus points, take easy profs, etc) at a state school, have leadership, talk the talk, and appear like a good candidate, despite not being bright enough in reality. And when I graduate, I will not try to hire a lot of people from my school, I will try to recruit people from the top schools. I feel like the few qualified people from state schools will do whatever it takes to make it (contacting a ton, getting a lot of internships, knowing interview questions in and out, etc) and those that might appear qualified on the outset (decent GPA, high interest, etc) but really aren't that smart, well they won't make it due to being disadvantaged from the start.

Furthermore, don't get delusional about how easy the ivies have it (as I once was). Yes they have it much easier than non-targets, but it's still very competitive for them. Perfect example, at my school I am considered the top finance student in my grade (GPA, internships, connections, ECs), but one of my best friends goes to a top target, is a year below me, has the same internships (we interned at the the same places), has the same GPA, just as many ECs, etc. And you know what, he commonly talks about feeling behind compared to other people at his school. Again, Me=considered top student at a non-target; friend=same stats as me and feels behind at a top target.

In conclusion, if you go to a non-target for undergrad and you really really want it, you should be able to get what you want in a good market. If bad hiring conditions are present though (as they are currently), then maybe you don't get your dream job from undergrad, despite working your ass off. So what, it's not the end of the world. You take the best job you can get, ace your GMAT, then apply to every top B-school four years down the road. You get accepted into a top MBA, and all of the sudden the reset button has been hit on your career and it's an even playing field. It's that simple, and if it that doesn't work for you, then you got other problems that you aren't being honest with yourself about (like maybe your personality totally sucks, you dress like shit, you're annoying, you have a victim/the world isn't fair demeanor, etc).

I apologize for the length of this post, guess I was feeling a rant.

Nov 27, 2007
Sucker_for_Seers:

And when I graduate, I will not try to hire a lot of people from my school, I will try to recruit people from the top schools. I feel like the few qualified people from state schools will do whatever it takes to make it (contacting a ton, getting a lot of internships, knowing interview questions in and out, etc) and those that might appear qualified on the outset (decent GPA, high interest, etc) but really aren't that smart, well they won't make it due to being disadvantaged from the start.

I see your point but would rather recruit from top schools based on some concept of being "bright" (a very pie in the sky notion) rather than graduates who have the motivation to work their butts off to get to the career they want? I would rather have candidates who excelled among their peers whether they come from an ivy or a crappy state school; even if they had to kiss a little ass and be resourceful.

My accounting professor once told me long ago that; in the business world it doesnt matter how "bright" or smart you are. Success is determined by ones ability to get the job done, and do it better than their peers. Being good in THIS business depends on so much more than having the mental aptitude to learn how to make pitch books or building a financial model on excel.

Nov 27, 2007

Sucker_for_seers, bravo. You articulated everything I've ever tried to express in comparing state schools to ivies. For instance, Schumacher's post before this last one made me want to cringe like I always do when I read a non-target's perspective on ivies - seriously, "studies" can prove anything anyone wants them to prove. I never believe anything that follows a "studies show" sentence started unless I see cold hard facts extrapolated from a completely scientifically sound experiment.

I had a January acceptance at the ivy I currently attend because I applied months after the deadline (I graduated early and did not know I would be doing so until the middle of spring semester that year). I filled in that first semester with time at a state school that had rolling admissions (what can I say, there's a certain amount of spontaneous magic in filling out an application in late June, seeing a school for the first time at orientation in July, and being a student there in August... heh). Regardless of if some of the kids were really bright, the majority just aren't. They really, honestly just aren't. I'm still friends with many people I met at that state school and consider them amazing people but that doesn't negate the fact that they would flounder in the environment I am currently in. It's not a bad thing, it's just the cold, hard truth.

Most of the people at schools like mine are here because their brightness and intelligence complement the fact that the characteristics to be motivated and succeed are innate for them. Yes, you're going to have those quintuple legacies who got 1250 on their SATs, but that is a small minority. They stand out here just as much as the 1500 students at a state school. You know both groups don't belong at their respective universities but circumstances allow/force them to be there.

Now for recruiting, if you were a bank, would you rather spend resources sending recruiting teams out to state/non-target schools where you have to weed through hundreds of fools to get to that one shining star or would you rather fish in a sea where you have a 99% chance of getting a desirable catch?

There is no reason for state school/non-target schools to get annoyed at what I've said - considering you are on here and reading up on what you need to do to get ahead, you're obviously one of those shining stars. Just don't pretend your dormmates are on your level.

  • b
  •  Nov 27, 2007

Meehgs, what you said is completely retarded. There is more to the spectrum than "ivy" or "state". There are many many top schools with very intelligent students that are still considered non-targets at most/all banks (Duke, Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Middlebury, Hamilton, Tufts, Georgetown, etc.) These schools are not targets because of the limited number of slots available at a bank - not because of the caliber of students at these schools.

That you actually believe that all non-targets are full of idiots just shows your personal ignorance, arrogance, and pretense. Nothing against Ivies in general, but your comment is completely idiotic.

  • b
  •  Nov 27, 2007

For future reference, Berkeley, UMich, and UVA are all state schools and I bet half the students at these schools can run intellectual circles around the kids at HYP. Paying $40k for an education comparable to a $200k education is one of the smartest moves any student could make. You're joking if you tell me the caliber of students at any of these three states aren't up to par with top Ivies. Please don't label "state schools" as some sort of inferior institution.

Nov 28, 2007
b:

Paying $40k for an education comparable to a $200k education is one of the smartest moves any student could make.

Is that the going rate these days for a "top" education? Sounds like that's heading for a crash alongside the housing bubble...

Nov 27, 2007

b, I use the word ivy loosely (as I believe lots of people on this site do). When I say ivy/target I'm referring to any top school that any top student can attend and have a very solid shot at getting their dream job when they graduate. I'm not purely referencing the athletic conference. Therefore, when I say Ivy or target, I'm including Stanford, UChicago, etc. despite them not being in the actual Ivy League. Additionally, when people reference state schools being non-targets and full of dumb people, they are referencing state schools as a whole/generally and are not knocking the few top state schools that do exist (Univ Michigan, Virginia, Berkely, etc). Therefore, when I say state school (I attend one), I'm referencing Florida, Oklahoma, Oregon, Michigan State, etc, which in my opinion are "inferior schools" because despite having a few incredibly gifted individuals that decide to attend there for whatever reason over a more academically prestigious institution, for the most part, these state schools are full of average students and get essentially no love from any employer outside of the region.

Schumacher, I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment on how to succeed in the world of finance, but not in the world of business. In the business world, yes, I agree that anyone that is willing to work a ton, network, and kiss a little ass will be successful, whether they have a 2.8 instead of a 4.0 or went to Ole Miss instead of Yale. However, after interning at a very reputable hedge fund this summer, I have no problem saying that no one has any chance of being a very successful PM at a quant heavy HF (this is just an example) unless they have off the charts intelligence. I don't care how hard you are willing to work, how motivated you are, or how connected you are, there are certain roles in finance that you absolutely cannot be a superstar in unless you have some serious aptitude. Which in my opinion, is another underlying reason why it is better to focus the majority of your recruiting from top schools (but leave some slots for a few non-target kids like me), which already have screened the intelligence factor for you generally (of course, there will always be the JFK Jrs of the world that don't have the academic merit, but get accepted for other obvious reasons).

Again, in the general business world being a 1600 SAT guy really doesn't matter when compared to just grinding out hard work (I remember reading a story about one of the Tyson pioneers being somewhat illiterate and just listening really intently in board meetings to gather all the proper info and make decisions accordingly), but in the world of finance (and numerous other careers), your intelligence/aptitude plays a much much bigger role.

Nov 27, 2007

i agree with Tumeman...
I once interviewed for a SWAP position at a middle-mkt IB for a trading position. I came across as too confident and knowledgeable...
right now i am interviewing, i will eventually get a position but i need to be patient...

This is frustrating. There are tons of girls working in my office who had killer grades, and are the dumbest ppl in the world and have no idea how to work. Seeing that thing on Goldmans site made me furious. I mean this si the definition of stupidity. If she gives good head, then i get it. Otherwise i dont.
English majors!!!??WTF, who cares what grades they got, they are english majors!!..lets see them in Finance (not hard) or physics!!

Very very sad...so many of us would be coffee boys, work for free, and actually have real passion ,perseverance, adn these incompetent idiots get the jobs...cause they studied shakespeare..wow...
This is demeaning to the trading profession...to say the least. When i get in, i promise you all that i will never hire such ppl ever.
Only quant kids, with decent ppl skills, and good grades. English majors will be able to fuck themselves and teach grammar in primary schools.

Nov 28, 2007
Batrick Pateman:

i agree with Tumeman...
I once interviewed for a SWAP position at a middle-mkt IB for a trading position.

Ok, pet peeve time...swap is not an acronym and should never be capitalized. i have no idea why so many ppl seem to do this.

Jimbo

Nov 27, 2007

Think about this logically.

The average English major at Princeton took harder math classes and got better grades in them in high school than the average finance or math major at Rutgers, which is a top 25 state school according to rankings.

I went to a target, studied an arts subject, but took enough AP calc and sciences in high school to have placed me out of the first year of an engineering degree at my state university.

Meanwhile the other new analyst on my desk studied finance and business at a mediocre university (got in due to amazing grades and being insanely multilingual) and failed all of his FSA exams (I'm in the UK - equivalent of Series 7). I passed them all on the first try.

Nov 27, 2007

you think about this logically- I do think ivy league arts majors have something to offer, but you may be going too far. the Rutgers math major by the end of his/her studies has surely surpassed the princeton english major in math ability- who cares about your AP calc and science scores from high school? (btw, I go to an ivy school and don't mean to brag when I say I did pretty well on many APs too..)

On the other hand, the rest of you may be forgetting that a very significant portion of S&T jobs don't require high math ability or deep previous knowledge in finance. That's where they would rather just take the princeton english major because they know (or believe) he/she will work hard to learn everything necessary and be successful.

In future success if given the opportunity a Rutgers Math major with a high SAT score would be a superior candidate. But then the problem is there are a 1000 dipshit state school retards for that one guy, making it easier to just forget about all you rutgers-esque math/sci majors and just focus on the princeton guy.

Nov 28, 2007

Wow did she just equate, 4th year engineering to same difficulty as AP High School Calc?

Dec 1, 2007
adehbone:

Wow did she just equate, 4th year engineering to same difficulty as AP High School Calc?

No.

I said that arts majors at the best universities will ON AVERAGE meet and exceed the requirements for one year's worth of credit on a finance or engineering course at even a slightly above average state school.

Just because you choose to study French doesn't mean your innate mathematical ability is any different to someone who studies finance.

Nov 28, 2007

Guys, it's all about diversity. There are probably drawbacks to having too many quant kids in the same place.

  • b
  •  Nov 28, 2007

That's not what it's about. It's about taking the most qualified people - period. It doesn't matter what their major was or where they went to school; if they are the most qualified, they will be considered. Non-targets may have a harder time landing an interview, but, given an interview, they have equal chances at getting a position. Quality candidates aren't denied because of qualifications; they are denied because of space limitations. Even an English major at Princeton has to demonstrate quantitative aptitude and an interest in business before getting a position. Yes, majoring in one of these joke majors at a target can get you an interview (provided a strong resume and high GPA), but trust me, the first question an engineering/science/arts/history major will be asked during an interview is "Why banking?". And they will get grilled on this. They are expected to know the nuances of banking just as well as anybody else, and, if they don't, they will be dinged. It can be advantageous (because less time is dedicated towards technicals) but the student w/o a finance background needs to demonstrate knowledge about the industry. If they are successful at this, they are probably just as passionate and interested as the next candidate. Simple. It's stupid to say that these soft majors don't belong in banking, just as it's stupid to say that non-targets are less qualified than targets.

Nov 28, 2007

"Meehgs, what you said is completely retarded. There is more to the spectrum than "ivy" or "state". There are many many top schools with very intelligent students that are still considered non-targets at most/all banks (Duke, Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Middlebury, Hamilton, Tufts, Georgetown, etc.) These schools are not targets because of the limited number of slots available at a bank - not because of the caliber of students at these schools."

Duke and Gtown are very much targets. Tufts, CMU and Northwestern too.

  • b
  •  Nov 28, 2007

Trust me, those schools that I listed are not considered "targets" the same way that actual targets are (Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, etc.). The schools that I listed receive very limited targeted recruiting. For example, I know that most of the schools that I listed are considered "alumni schools" or "secondary targets" at some major firms (when the alumni are vested enough to vouch for their alma mater) or students at these schools are considered for "targeted recruiting" at firms like Lehman (which means that they target the top few candidates at every school across the board as opposed to targeting every student within a very limited band of schools). Under these conditions, the school recruiting team may be granted a very limited superday slots to award to their schools. These schools are the first to get the shaft in current market conditions.

In my original post, I mentioned that they are considered non-targets at most/all banks. This is true for the most part. The two exceptions are Duke and NW'ern. These schools are considered "targets" at a few banks (think 1-2) and are also considered alumni/secondary schools at the other banks. These two receive additional recruiting b/c of Fuqua/Kellogg, but the undergraduates are still not considered the same way a H/W/S undergrad is considered.

Nov 28, 2007

"The two exceptions are Duke and NW'ern. These schools are considered "targets" at a few banks (think 1-2) and are also considered alumni/secondary schools at the other banks."

false.

" but the undergraduates are still not considered the same way a H/W/S undergrad is considered."

this is probably true.

  • b
  •  Nov 28, 2007

Trust me... I go to one of these schools. We aren't considered a top-target at most of the major banks.

Nov 28, 2007

Am guessing you go to northwestern then.

  • b
  •  Nov 28, 2007

Maybe yes, maybe no. If you say this because you think that Duke is considered a top-target at most of the banks, I can assure you that your assumption is incorrect.

Nov 28, 2007

"Maybe yes, maybe no. If you say this because you think that Duke is considered a top-target at most of the banks, I can assure you that your assumption is incorrect."

Ok then. I'm looking at from the perspective of doing college recruiting (though I'm not on the duke recruting group).

seem to run into a decent number of dukies. very few from northwestern.

Nov 28, 2007

I've heard of Duke people doing very good. Georgetown too (when I transferred schools I almost decided to go to Gtown but my old man made me pick Cornell). At Northwestern only people in MMSS are regularly successful.
You need perspective. (i.e. being on the recruiting teams, being a transfer student and able to compare schools, personally knowing stats or many people and their schools, etc.)
Jimbo would know.

  • b
  •  Nov 28, 2007

I'm not arguing whether one school is more successful than another; I'm arguing whether each school is treated as a "target". Yes, you can be very successful, yet come from a non-target. I know plenty of Middlebury and Hamilton kids who ended up both on Wall Street, as well as penetrating the almost impermeable wall of McKinsey (don't ask me how). Nevertheless, these schools are still considered non-targets. I can tell you that Duke's superdays got slashed this year at a number of banks because of the credit crunch... then again, so did all other non-targets.

Also, my original point was that there are very smart kids at schools other than Ivies who don't get jobs because they come from a non-target - not to argue whether certain listed schools are targets [there are more than enough of those posts as it is]. Some of the kids at these non-target schools are easily up to par with kids at top Ivies, and I stand by that statement. It was moronic for Meehgs to claim that "everyone who doesn't go to an Ivy is an idiot, save a few exceptions".

[I believe her exact words were: "considering you are on here and reading up on what you need to do to get ahead, you're obviously one of those shining stars. Just don't pretend your dormmates are on your level."
... Guess what Meehgs; fabricated flattery doesn't work and it doesn't sit well when you condescendingly generalize across institutions, even if you are making us out as the "shining stars".]

Nov 28, 2007

Interesting points made but I've got to add a few. First, on many trading desks there are roles for many of the stereotypes displayed here. I don't need to work with 100% MIT quants and similarly I don't need to work with 100% "touchy-feely" liberal arts HYP guys/gals. Some trading businesses are more art than science and vice versa. Second, many firms hire the Ivy types because they have a better network. And in many businesses, especially IB, networking is huge at the top levels. So it's not always who is the better student, it's the full package being looked at. All that said, for IB analyst programs (and I started there), the Ivy emphasis at the BB firms seemed misplaced, because the gruntwork can be done by any reasonably smart, very motivated employee. Third, for Tuneman, you're right, life isn't fair, especially on Wall Street. But you are wrong about all the women traders "doing" people to get their jobs. It's probably the same percentage as the percentage of guys who get their first job at a BB firm because their daddy is a big client.

Nov 30, 2007

Are you suggesting that big clients of banks don't have daughters?

b- you go to Hamilton. Never heard anyone toss it in the same group as Duke, Northwestern etc.

If you guys think finance is snobby about which school you went to, consulting is much worse...

  • b
  •  Nov 30, 2007

Maybe I do... most likely I don't.

  • b
  •  Nov 30, 2007

A school that would best exemplify my original point: Johns Hopkins.

For people intimately familiar with the school, they realize that the quant program w/in JH is extremely difficult and very highly regarded. I personally view the school as an unknown bastard brother to MIT. Yes, a number of JH kids are very successful in recruiting (after all, the school does have a strong brand name). I know a number of JH kids who ended up at GS/MS. Nonetheless, the Hopkins and MS alumni that I worked w/ over the summer (now at HBS) told me that JH gets virtually no recruiting, and is not considered a target at the majority of BBs.

Nov 30, 2007

Thigns may be different at a heavily-quant trading desk, but in terms of banking, the work itself isn't that difficult. At least at the analyst level, I would make the argument that recruiters are looking for the whole package/ability to work your ass off. Coming from a non-target, I know that my school is very well regarded on the Street. Yes, the top individuals in finance/math/econ/engineering are recruited and get jobs... but I don't doubt that their success is mainly from their drive and willingness to work hard.

Nov 30, 2007

"There are many many top schools with very intelligent students that are still considered non-targets at most/all banks (Duke, Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Middlebury, Hamilton, Tufts, Georgetown, etc.)"

You are kidding yourself if you don't think Duke is a target at most banks.

Fact.

The credit crunch has affected students ranging from the Ivies, comparable top-tier universities, to non-targets.

Fact.

This recruiting season has not been good for ANYONE.

Fact.

  • b
  •  Nov 30, 2007

Why do people keep advocating Duke as a top-target?! Are people basing their claims on Duke's reputation and USNews ranking?! I have intimate knowledge of recruiting at Duke, and I can assure you that you are gravely mistaken if you are basing your assertions on these factors. Duke does get some recruiting, as I mentioned earlier, but it is definitely NOT a top-target.

Nonetheless, I am done arguing this point. As I emphasized, this was NOT the point of my post. If you are obsessed w/ a target/non-target debate, go take it up somewhere else.

Nov 30, 2007

US News ranking? No

More like close relationships with recruiting at various banks

Dec 1, 2007

Who cares if it's a super target or a "targeted non target", blah blah blah, the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people working on Wall Street from Duke, Middlebury, Northwestern etc.

It's not Harvard or Stanford but get over it! If you go to these schools, work hard, and have half a brain you should be able to find some decent work. So maybe you wont be a VP at Goldman by the time you're 28 or a partner at McKinsey by your early 30's, GET OVER IT.

I cant stress this point enough: If you think you are denied a job from a certain firm simply because of the school you went to, why would you want to work at such an institution? Have some self respect and have faith in your own talents, because if you don't, who will?

Here ends this public service announcement...

Dec 1, 2007

How the hell are they going to meet the requirement if they haven't done the material/have been studying on their own?
And you were previously talking about a hypothetical mathematics major at Rutgers, what about that?

I'm just saying that you don't have to look at AVERAGE ivy league english vs. AVERAGE state school math/finance. There's something called gpa (and you can go ahead and add .2 for the ivy league if you want)

so is a 3.8 (3.6) Rutgers math worth more than a 3.6 Princeton English?]
I know there isn't a great need for math in some positions, but I'm just talking about perceived ability. Answer that.

I don't go to H/Y/P but Im willing to bet the average Cornell English major is not even anywhere near the average Rutgers math major in "innate mathematical ability" (I major in math, and as a transfer student from a state school I can tell you that its more self-selective than you might think)

Dec 1, 2007

The ENTRY REQUIREMENTS.

I'm not talking about college GPA.

Let me make this very clear to you:

Most English majors at Harvard have shown a higher performance in math and science upon entry to university than most Rutgers finance majors have. Their choice of subject does not fundamentally change the fact that they were among the best students in ALL SUBJECTS in high school in the country.

Why wouldn't a bank want well-rounders like the students at targets, than kids who got Bs in math in high school calc and then did a finance degree - which friends of mine who have done them even admit aren't even that hard.

Feel free to read the entry requirements for Rutgers engineering, you don't even have to take calc to get admitted into the Engineering School. Then do a survey and see how many English majors at Princeton not only took Calc, but got 4s or 5s on the AP. I'd be shocked if the results don't match what I'm saying.

Dec 1, 2007

"Let me make this clear to you" -fp175, reiterating the obvious

I agree with nearly everything in you previous post.
If you presented this type of SIDE-LINED stream of thought in a princeton english term paper you should've failed.

-"Rutgers Finance major"
I was talking about Rutgers math majors. Until now so were you.
-"I'm not talking about college gpa"
I was. If you leave out this useful statistics than obviously college prestige becomes even more important.
-"English majors...Harvard...higher performance in math [high school]..than Rutgers Finance majors"
No shit, publish a paper. We were talking about post-grad. You know, when we actually get a job?

I'm done responding to you unless you want to actually answer the question I posed in my previous post.
(Clue: it was preceeded by the statement "answer that.")

if you're too clueless, let me make our problem easy to understand:
this is what happened:

foxdie: Porsches are good cars.
fp175: No foxdie, Hondas are not good cars.
foxdie: Do you think Porsches are good cars? Answer that.
fp175: Let me make this clear to you: Hondas are not good cars.
foxdie: jesus.

Dec 1, 2007

I apologize for not reading every single word of your posts. I don't log on to this forum long enough to dissect every single comment and then write a dissertation-style essay in response. I work 70 hours a week, give me a f-ing break.

I will reiterate what I said in my first post so you can understand.

YOU DO NOT NEED A QUANT DEGREE TO BE A GOOD TRADER

So a bank SHOULD take a well rounded arts grad from a target, who has shown quantitative ability in high school (which honestly is as high as the level one needs to trade most products), rather than someone who studied math or finance at a mediocre university that isn't as hard and has lower entry requirements. You want an analyst that can learn quickly, and you are more likely to get that if you target students that have shown such an aptitude consistently.

It makes by far the most sense from a recruiting perspective. I don't know if you are a student or not but you seem to think a math/science/whatever degree has some kind of direct relevance to trading. I actually work on a relatively quantitative desk and am telling you that you are totally completely wrong. Get some experience instead of making big speeches about how the math students at Rutgers or whatever have been wronged.

Dec 1, 2007

god just forget this thread. I ALREADY MENTIONED <> THAT I KNOW HIGH MATH ABILITY ISNT NECESSARY FOR ALOT OF JOBS IN S&T. I too was referring to general ability and mentioned the self selectivity of math majors at even state schools.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO "DISSECT" MY POST TO READ THAT.

Just stop posting and arguing if you aren't EVEN GOING TO FUCKING READ what you're arguing against.

DON'T FUCKING REPLY TO THIS UNLESS YOU READ MY OTHER POSTS FIRST. YOU ARE BY FAR THE MOST ANNOYING BITCH I HAVE EVER MET.

P.S.- As a ivy math major I have no vested interest in Rutgers math majors (unlike you vs. princeton english). They can rot in abyssmal unemployment for all I care. But I believe what I do because Ive been there.

Dec 1, 2007

If I met you in person I would slap you silly to make you shut up.
You're like a fucking broken record.

Hell, I would say some state school business-major whore who can READ has more general intelligence than you.

Only legacy/minority admits to ivy schools go on and on hiding behind the image of the average ivy league student. source: fist hand experience

Dec 1, 2007

What does my gender have to do with anything? Way to bring the conversation to the most base and pathetic level.

And if you think we've "met" then I strongly suggest you get out more.

It's sad that there are only a small number of people with work experience on this forum, and a bunch of self-deluded students with chips on their shoulders dominate most of the discussions.

Dec 1, 2007

goddamn READ you dumb bitch. I said "if" we met.

P.S.- I don't care if you started working a few months ago. You're likely a minority female candidate with a good speech and communication skills (but poor thinking and reading skills)

Dec 1, 2007

Very clever of you to edit your post to delete the comment "You are the dumbest bitch I have ever met."

Like I said, if you judge my reading and analytical abilities on how I reply to posts on an internet forum that I browse in my free time, then go ahead. It doesn't have any impact on me whatsoever.

I just think it's weird/sad that you are so highly aggressive towards basically words on a screen attached to someone you don't know and will never meet. You realize you are talking about beating up a woman - that's not a normal thing for someone to say.

You have done nothing but make yourself look pathetic and disgusting. Even if you don't think my posts are intelligent enough, at least I don't come off like a violent sociopath.

Dec 1, 2007

I'm not "weird" "sad" "pathetic" "disgusting" or "sociopathic".

I just can't stand people who "correct" me using misconstrued points I never argued.

You're never going to write an answer to my very specific question, so just stop with the insults and useless shit and I will too

Dec 2, 2007

"You're likely a minority female candidate with a good speech and communication skills (but poor thinking and reading skills)"

You are a real class act, deadjackal

Dec 4, 2007

First, b, you made a statement by starting this thread. A lot of people disagreed with it. It wasn't an answer you liked. That's fine, but if you're not willing to hear the objective truth, don't ask questions in the future. I told you very specifically why it wasn't worth the money to send a recruiting team out to every near-target school (even if I used terms like "ivy" and "state" when really referring to "target" and "non-target") and you only focused on the parts of my post that you felt directly attacked you. No one is attacking you, so don't take personal offense. Maybe that high strung personality of yours is what hindered your job search...

As for "You're likely a minority female candidate with a good speech and communication skills (but poor thinking and reading skills)"... eek, deadjackal, I was with you up until that little nugget. I realize you're angered but you needn't take this anger out on the entire female minority population...

  • b
  •  Dec 4, 2007
Comment
Dec 4, 2007
  • b
  •  Dec 4, 2007
Dec 4, 2007
Dec 5, 2007