Do NOT attend tier2 or 3 schools

AlHindi
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am

Do NOT attend tier2 or 3 schools

Post by AlHindi »

If you want to get an Masters in quant related  and field, stick to CMU,Berkeley, NYU,Columbia,Stanford and Princeton. Cornell may be OK. Other than that all Universities are pure waste of time and money. Current market says that graduates from other institutions ,with Masters,won't be considered. There are just too few jobs and those with top universities are enough to fill in at the moment. Most jobs require PHDs anyway. So whatever is left is filled with the top schools.



People at UNCC, Kent, Rutgers, and god knows how many seem to be living on hope. Beware of future ( actually no future ) that awaits you in this tough market.
User avatar
Tradenator
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am

Do NOT attend tier2 or 3 schools

Post by Tradenator »

Education is rarely a complete waste of time, particularly in the basics like spelling and rational thinking.



EDIT: For the suggestion box...lose the negativity since nobody wants to infect their workplace with it.  Try replacing it with creativity, persistence, optimism and a genuine interest in what you aim to do.  Telling everyone how depressed you are because you think your school sucks will not help you land a job.  I hope this helps in some way.  Oh, and also maybe seach here for the story of J Slade, the one who rules.
User avatar
FDAXHunter
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am

Do NOT attend tier2 or 3 schools

Post by FDAXHunter »

What the....
The Figs Protocol.
User avatar
Bachelier
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am

Do NOT attend tier2 or 3 schools

Post by Bachelier »

hmmmmm....



- bachelier, GWU MSF 2000......runs two large...



****



education is great.



self-education is better



but what you can *DO* is best.



if it is a rational choice to go to Florida State or Gerogia Tech for their Masters in quant fin, it is just fine (cheaper, completes your skill set, etc.)



a guy who does well on tests and coasted through berkeley will sooon be discoverd as a skilless fraud.



a guy who worked hard at FSU and can code and backtest and can *DO* things will ultimately be discovered and well-bid.



always bet on yourself anyway...never an institution. people who are good at the best institutions take the institutional quality as a given that they deserve because they've bet on themselves. people who are buying a brand name to make their weaknessess look better will be outed as frauds.  you can put lipstick on a hog and call it "Monique" but it is stilll a pig.
Okay, if I can turn a sphere inside out with smooth isotopy, how come I can't turn the manifold that is myself inside out to see why my stomach hurts?
User avatar
polysena
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am

Do NOT attend tier2 or 3 schools

Post by polysena »

you can put lipstick on a hog and call it "Monique" but it is stilll a pig.



 



Bachelier :-) I like that one.. 



But why "Monique" (I hope you aren't thinking of some real Monique ... eh?) and the sharp allusion to the fact that pigs are used to test cosmetics.. carrément bien drôle.
И ветер, и дождик, и мгла Над холодной пустыней воды.
User avatar
FDAXHunter
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am

Do NOT attend tier2 or 3 schools

Post by FDAXHunter »

I really want to take polysena out to dinner. Who could resist a cute puppy like that?
The Figs Protocol.
User avatar
baraider
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am

Do NOT attend tier2 or 3 schools

Post by baraider »

>>>>If you want to get an Masters in quant related and field, stick to CMU,Berkeley, NYU,Columbia,Stanford and Princeton. Cornell may be OK. Other than that all Universities are pure waste of time and money. Current market says that graduates from other institutions ,with Masters,won't be considered. There are just too few jobs and those with top universities are enough to fill in at the moment. Most jobs require PHDs anyway. So whatever is left is filled with the top schools.



>>>>People at UNCC, Kent, Rutgers, and god knows how many seem to be living on hope. Beware of future ( actually no future ) that awaits you in this tough market.



Rubbish.



Have you really looked at the current placement at columbia, cmu ?
User avatar
filthy
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am

Do NOT attend tier2 or 3 schools

Post by filthy »

i'm not convinced self education is better. there is a reason universities exist.



(bachelier,did you get my email?)
"Game's the same, just got more fierce"
User avatar
ClopeMan
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am

Do NOT attend tier2 or 3 schools

Post by ClopeMan »

I interpret AlHindi's depressive post as saying "to land a job at tier1 place, you need a tier1 education stamp". As superficial as it might look, it certainly contain some truth. I'm just out of the process myself; It's been a relatively hard process, of which i am extremely glad to be finally out of.



There is way too many quant wannabe these days..., but strong and wise guys usually find their way out of the bush, no matter what.
twisted objective mind
User avatar
NS
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am

Do NOT attend tier2 or 3 schools

Post by NS »

My $2 HKD...



Going to a top tier school can considerably help you get your foot in the door at the top tier global banks and a handful of the major buyside firms. It is a combination of the reputation of the school, its alumni network, and the relationships these schools enjoy when it comes to things like campus recruitment.



However there is a lot of truth in what Bachelier says. If you can't actually DO anything useful within a couple of years of joining a place, you will be canned. Maybe not straight away, but eventually you will be discovered as a fraud.



Likewise going to a non top tier school makes getting into these places at entry level harder, certainly far from impossible, but that little bit harder. However there are plenty of other banks and funds and financial firms to go to and prove you can do stuff. I can only talk about the markets (read: trading, structuring, marketing, f/o quants etc) side of things and I can say this with a fair degree of certainty:



In most cases, when it comes to experienced hires (in the context of these positions I consider 2 years and upwards to be 'experienced') my clients would rather take a guy from a smaller firm or franchise who punches above his weight in terms of what he can deliver than a guy from a rival firm who cannot show evidence that he has not just coasted along and been productive only because of the firm's brand or systems or technology or franchise etc.
Post Reply