LOL. IMHO an undergraduate college education merely serves to teach you how to critically think, and research topics effectively. This may not be the ideal situation - these skills should be taught in high school - but for most folks it is the reality in the US. ... A few are fortunate enough to go to places like the Lab school at UC or to skip high school and go straight to junior college - not a bad idea by the way. Once you know how to look through the atttempts at using statistics to hide the facts and get enough common sense about how companies are actually run and what motivates people to act as they do, then you have enough general background to be in the financial industry. You need to learn the basics like accounting, routine mathematical calculations and techniques for business, and know how to do basic computer programming with modern tools. By the way, the world is not run by people that only attended Harvard, Yale, or Columbia. It is laugh out loud funny that anyone would make such a comment - except of course a graduate or recruiter for those schools .....
I'm not sure what you'd call "typical". I do different things. E.g. just recently, I ran some random effects models and then some logits to improve the strategy a bit. The number of things that are directly applicable from econometrics is substancial. Things like influencial observation stats (dfbetas, dffits, s-residuals etc).
Your preference whether you want to be a discretionary trader or mechanical trader is an important factor to decide what courses you want to take. For a discretionary trader , psychology is absolutely important. For a trader using mechanical systems, statistics and programming skills are very helpful. You may want to put some thoughts on which trading style fits your personality.
I would agree with the above statement. By the way, the world is not run by people that only attended Harvard, Yale, or Columbia.[/QUOTE] The world may not be, but IMO Wall Street is. If you look at any job posting for a big firm trading position or other high finance position you'll see that most require your education to be from a "top-tier university only". That is code for "non-Ivy leaguers need not apply." It is laugh out loud funny that anyone would make such a comment - except of course a graduate or recruiter for those schools ..... [/QUOTE] Of course, I am NOT a graduate of one of these schools, nor would I be the only one with the above opinion.
The world may not be, but IMO Wall Street is. If you look at any job posting for a big firm trading position or other high finance position you'll see that most require your education to be from a "top-tier university only". That is code for "non-Ivy leaguers need not apply." It is laugh out loud funny that anyone would make such a comment - except of course a graduate or recruiter for those schools ..... [/QUOTE] Of course, I am NOT a graduate of one of these schools, nor would I be the only one with the above opinion. [/QUOTE] I know many people that work in mangement levels on Wall Street and Lasalle street that dont have a Havard MBA or advanced degree from Columbia. At the entry level Wall street firms may be able to get away with this type of filtering but when you start looking at the management levels not everyone has the same pedigree.
I was referring to the entry level Street positions, since these are the positions that recent college grads would pursue.
DEAD ON!! I always hear people talk about college like it is nothing but a pre-professional school, almost like a trade/apprentice school. Some people even use this as an excuse to cheat ("all I care about is getting a good job/into a good MBA program). That alone is not what higher institutions were created for centuries (and beyond) ago, it is not why undergrads are expected to get a broad education (along with a major and whatever else), and it is not how education was viewed as recently as a few decades ago by most people. College is an opportunity for self-betterment, for learning (or honing) one's thinking skills, for becoming a more productive person in society (ie a better citizen), AS WELL AS for preparing to enter the professional world. I do think that one can typically learn more studying the same material with a good class and professor than on his or her own (especially when one is first learning such subjects as math and philosophy). Such a class aids, among other things, in a student being challenged by being forced to express his or her analysis and have that analysis challenged, preferably through a dialogue/debate. Just my view. I'll get off my soap box now.
I hope you're joking. At Harvard, over 80% of some recent classes have been graduating with honors. At Yale, the types of classes that students are now allowed to take are ridiculous (strict rules on university studies have been changed). Some of the best educations can be had at small schools and many No Name Us. If you go to a collegiate debate tournament/championship, speech tournament, or plenty of other intellectual activities or challenges, some of the nation's best are at lesser known schools. Meanwhile, plenty of rich, connected, "legacy" kids, who are rather stupid but still the product of a privileged prep school upbringing, get into the ivy schools. The bottom line is, one can get a top notch education at most colleges in the US, depending upon what that student MAKES OF HIS OR HER EDUCATION. In other words, one's education is usually merely a reflection of what makes of it. Conversely, there are students who cheat, slide by, and/or take the easiest classes and professors, thereby receiving a very mediocre or low level education, at even the most prestigious schools in the country! Also, not everyone can afford private schools, much less ivy schools.