Your thoughts on the Elite Education Brain Drain?

[mrmillersd]

Kids from the top schools , ivies+stanford/mit are being instantly scooped up by goldman sachs and other finance/big business institutions. This leaves the rest of the less intelligent population to do the jobs that are actually important to society, such as Teachers, Firefighters etc.


What is your thought on this? If these kids from other non elite schools were ACTUALLY as intelligent, companies that only want to profit would hire them. Instead, over 30% of stanford's graduating class is working at either Goldman, Citi, MBB.


http://stanfordreview.org/article/is-th ... -students/

[mguy]

I would not call Finance "elite" at all, these are mostly extroverted people with propensity for ego tied with capital accumulation.

The smartest ones I've met have nothing to do with Finance (I lived between Harvard and MIT) and they are usually involved in the sciences.

Anyone who is passionate about money can be successful at it -- but something like theoretical nuclear research is a different beast altogether. The smartest guy I have met is studying Theology, and i'm sure if he wanted to be a Financial badass he could have easily sold his soul but where is the pursuit there?

[Tsar]

Ivy league colleges are overrated and the major investment banks are in collusion with the system. They hire based on the name and exclusivity of the university. They recruit at specific universities and do not post job offerings online. It has nothing to do with hiring intelligent people or an idiot. It's elites helping elites, not earning the position of merit.

Maybe if the college was focusing on science and had the best professors in the world then there might be a variance (as long as they don't use any affirmative action. They would have to have intelligence and academics as their only focus for accepting applicants. Not extracurricular, sports, race, gender, or sexuality). Focusing on any other factors except academics and intelligence would reduce the effective of using the university to judge intelligence.

A person can only be intelligent if they are capable of thinking for themselves. A person can be knowledgeable without thinking for themselves. How many people go into a course like history and just except it without thinking about it for themselves.

A profession like finance use to be based on common sense. Most more complicated jobs involved apprenticeships so if a person wanted to be a doctor then they would begin an apprenticeship. So to call Ivy League colleges the best at finance and elite would be wrong. Ivy League colleges are exclusive and many people go to them, they have the best companies recruiting at them but that doesn't make them elite. Any college that focuses on affirmative action, diversification of the student body, sports, race, gender, or sexuality loses it's ability to be judged as a college that focuses on the most intelligent students based on the individual merit of intelligence.

Many colleges for doctors and dentists also have cut offs to prevent more people from "flooding the market." Keeping the population of these people down allows colleges and universities to charge more for tuition and allows doctors to charge higher costs. This isn't a free market.

Finance isn't law where people need to be trained for several years or a chemist that needs to be educated for years to have a basic understanding of how it works. Finance is finance and whether it's learned at an ivy league college or a common public college it is not an indicator about intelligence or how successful they can be.

It's the brand name. Coke and Pepsi are the two most popular soda brands for cola in America. A small company that creates a new cola brand that has better ingredients and is healthier wouldn't be widely bought because it doesn't have the history or the same marketing capabilities, many large stores would refuse to carry it or offer it shelf space just because they go on brand name. Even though it would be a better cola brand, they would choose coke and pepsi just because people buy based on the brand. So a person with a Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cambridge, or Stanford will be getting picked based on their college brand they list on their resume, not based on merit or intelligence. It's naive to think that Ivy League schools or graduates are the best and most intelligent.

Many graduates from non-elite schools are as intelligent or more intelligent than the elite and ivy school graduates.

[mrmillersd]

So what youre saying is that these big financial instutitions and other businesses care more about hiring "elite" people than protecting their profits at all costs.


If they care about their profits the most, they would hire the most qualified. Instead they almost exclusive hire from HPYSM, which according to you, are not any better than other graduates......



Bottom line is, if you are truly a wizard at finance and can crack out derivitives with your raw brainpower, you can be a HS dropout and be a Banker. Do you really think that there are people who are smart enough to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY and overlooked because they dont have ivy credentials? You must really have a liberal definition of smart/intellgeint or not understand how hard top level finance is.

[Tsar]

So what youre saying is that these big financial instutitions and other businesses care more about hiring "elite" people than protecting their profits at all costs.


If they care about their profits the most, they would hire the most qualified. Instead they almost exclusive hire from HPYSM, which according to you, are not any better than other graduates......



Bottom line is, if you are truly a wizard at finance and can crack out derivitives with your raw brainpower, you can be a HS dropout and be a Banker. Do you really think that there are people who are smart enough to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY and overlooked because they dont have ivy credentials? You must really have a liberal definition of smart/intellgeint or not understand how hard top level finance is.

Most areas of finance don't require a knowledge of derivatives. They are a recent invention in the field of finance. A person would need to have a college education and a master's degree but an Ivy League degree isn't any better than a regular degree in terms of intelligence. What matters is if the person understands what they are doing in their area of finance. Like I said, derivatives isn't needed in most areas of finance. If you are talking about understanding how options work and utilizing options in stocks or futures then I would say anyone can self-learn and fully understand how to trade them and the theories on how they work. If a person wants to use formulas and try to determine the value based on their own calculations then they would need specialized education. Calculating the value of derivatives and using complex formulas does require a formal education. Understanding finance and being able to be successful in finance does not. There are stock brokers, researchers, analysts, investment bankers, financial planners, portfolio managers, hedge fund managers, and numerous other choices for finance. Not all require a knowledge of derivatives or financial modeling.

No matter how a person looks at it, an Ivy League mostly sells the brand and their network. Many universities offer the same quality education.

I recommend reading these four articles that explain some of what I'm saying. Believing that Ivy League graduates are the smartest, best, and most intelligent people just because they got into those colleges is your subjective opinion. I won't try to persuade you otherwise because your entitled to believe what you choose.

http://www.today.com/id/44122857/ns/tod ... gasIpJwpLg
http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/ivy-l ... ewer-kids/
http://collegeappwizard.com/financial-a ... e-schools/
http://theamericanscholar.org/the-disad ... gasJZJwpLg

[Teal Lantern]

What is your thought on this? If these kids from other non elite schools were ACTUALLY as intelligent, companies that only want to profit would hire them. Instead, over 30% of stanford's graduating class is working at either Goldman, Citi, MBB.

Unknown grad from RiskTake University vs. Unknown grad from Top B. School
Less downside risk (for hiring manager mrmillersd).

Scenario: New guy doesn't work out after ...
a) you hired Unknown grad from Top B. School
Your boss will likely say "Oh, well, mrmillersd, they don't always work out.
Set up another interview ..."

b) you hired Unknown grad from RiskTake University
Your boss will likely say "mrmillersd! WTF were you thinking, hiring that jerkoff from RiskTake!?
This is why we hire from Top B. School!! That B stands for Bad@$$
One more screw-up like that and ... (colorful threat added, here) !!"

[Moretorque]

It goes to tell you the non producers are taking the world completely over from the producers. Finance? last I saw the FED was buying all it's own bonds in order to eject the necessary credit to keep the system from collapsing.

Most of your truly intelligent people have figured out the current college gig is to turn out droids just like the military in order to service and prop up the credit monopolies levers of power the printing press.

[S_Parc]

Most areas of finance don't require a knowledge of derivatives. They are a recent invention in the field of finance. A person would need to have a college education and a master's degree but an Ivy League degree isn't any better than a regular degree in terms of intelligence. What matters is if the person understands what they are doing in their area of finance. Like I said, derivatives isn't needed in most areas of finance. If you are talking about understanding how options work and utilizing options in stocks or futures then I would say anyone can self-learn and fully understand how to trade them and the theories on how they work. If a person wants to use formulas and try to determine the value based on their own calculations then they would need specialized education. Calculating the value of derivatives and using complex formulas does require a formal education. Understanding finance and being able to be successful in finance does not. There are stock brokers, researchers, analysts, investment bankers, financial planners, portfolio managers, hedge fund managers, and numerous other choices for finance. Not all require a knowledge of derivatives or financial modeling.

Ppl, both Tsar and Miller, you guys have got it all wrong. This has nothing to do with having a 220 IQ, photographic memory, and all that jazz. Ppl on the Street won't invent the next propulsion system nor the ability to teleport. I have pals, right now, earning $200K to $2M per year, trading futures/currencies, without having worked on the Street for MSDW, GS, JPM, or Citi. Yes, they're earning huge payback, w/o having to *work for the man*, at a bulge bracket.

This is about ... the color of one's parachute. A bunch of folks from the Ivies, who'd intern in finance, typically recruit from their own crowd. And thus, you have what's known as a *Clubhouse Effect* where folks from the same schools, tend to end up at similar companies. In Cambridge MA's Kendall Sq, you often find that half the ppl working there had gone to MIT. On Wall Street, you'll have the B-schools of Wharton, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, & London make up a bulk of the VP/partnership track aspirants there. And as a result, they also hire undergrads from those places, as junior analysts. Why is this a mystery to any of you?

Thus, it's not a meritocracy per se but a cohort effect. And yes, you can't attend a state school with a top engineering program like the Univ of Illinois/UC, Univ of Texas/Austin, or Georgia Tech, w/o having gone to Univ of Chicago B-school later. This is actually what ppl do. They attend a low cost/free undergrad (on full scholarship) and then, attend a brand name b-school, to get recruited onto the Street.

[Moretorque]

Most areas of finance don't require a knowledge of derivatives. They are a recent invention in the field of finance. A person would need to have a college education and a master's degree but an Ivy League degree isn't any better than a regular degree in terms of intelligence. What matters is if the person understands what they are doing in their area of finance. Like I said, derivatives isn't needed in most areas of finance. If you are talking about understanding how options work and utilizing options in stocks or futures then I would say anyone can self-learn and fully understand how to trade them and the theories on how they work. If a person wants to use formulas and try to determine the value based on their own calculations then they would need specialized education. Calculating the value of derivatives and using complex formulas does require a formal education. Understanding finance and being able to be successful in finance does not. There are stock brokers, researchers, analysts, investment bankers, financial planners, portfolio managers, hedge fund managers, and numerous other choices for finance. Not all require a knowledge of derivatives or financial modeling.

Ppl, both Tsar and Miller, you guys have got it all wrong. This has nothing to do with having a 220 IQ, photographic memory, and all that jazz. Ppl on the Street won't invent the next propulsion system nor the ability to teleport. I have pals, right now, earning $200K to $2M per year, trading futures/currencies, without having worked on the Street for MSDW, GS, JPM, or Citi. Yes, they're earning huge payback, w/o having to *work for the man*, at a bulge bracket.

This is about ... the color of one's parachute. A bunch of folks from the Ivies, who'd intern in finance, typically recruit from their own crowd. And thus, you have what's known as a *Clubhouse Effect* where folks from the same schools, tend to end up at similar companies. In Cambridge MA's Kendall Sq, you often find that half the ppl working there had gone to MIT. On Wall Street, you'll have the B-schools of Wharton, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, & London make up a bulk of the VP/partnership track aspirants there. And as a result, they also hire undergrads from those places, as junior analysts. Why is this a mystery to any of you?

Thus, it's not a meritocracy per se but a cohort effect. And yes, you can't attend a state school with a top engineering program like the Univ of Illinois/UC, Univ of Texas/Austin, or Georgia Tech, w/o having gone to Univ of Chicago B-school later. This is actually what ppl do. They attend a low cost/free undergrad (on full scholarship) and then, attend a brand name b-school, to get recruited onto the Street.

And it is a Gigantic con to, these people produce nothing of value for our civilization and rule over all of us.

[S_Parc]

Ppl, both Tsar and Miller, you guys have got it all wrong. This has nothing to do with having a 220 IQ, photographic memory, and all that jazz. Ppl on the Street won't invent the next propulsion system nor the ability to teleport. I have pals, right now, earning $200K to $2M per year, trading futures/currencies, without having worked on the Street for MSDW, GS, JPM, or Citi. Yes, they're earning huge payback, w/o having to *work for the man*, at a bulge bracket.

This is about ... the color of one's parachute. A bunch of folks from the Ivies, who'd intern in finance, typically recruit from their own crowd. And thus, you have what's known as a *Clubhouse Effect* where folks from the same schools, tend to end up at similar companies. In Cambridge MA's Kendall Sq, you often find that half the ppl working there had gone to MIT. On Wall Street, you'll have the B-schools of Wharton, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, & London make up a bulk of the VP/partnership track aspirants there. And as a result, they also hire undergrads from those places, as junior analysts. Why is this a mystery to any of you?

Thus, it's not a meritocracy per se but a cohort effect. And yes, you can't attend a state school with a top engineering program like the Univ of Illinois/UC, Univ of Texas/Austin, or Georgia Tech, w/o having gone to Univ of Chicago B-school later. This is actually what ppl do. They attend a low cost/free undergrad (on full scholarship) and then, attend a brand name b-school, to get recruited onto the Street.

And it is a Gigantic con to, these people produce nothing of value for our civilization and rule over all of us.

Con or no con, the two most sought after career tracks are in finance or management consulting, for many of today's top graduates who're not premed. And then afterwards, a few marquis tech firms like Google or Amazon. And yes, there are a few niche engineering fields like Petroleum fracking and so forth but again, that's a very specific application of mechanical and/or chemical engineering whereas in the past, places like Dow, Merck, General Mills, etc would hire lots of engineering graduates. Today, those companies are mainly downsizing and offshoring R&D and production work.

This is mostly the result of our society, moving away from productive work to that of money management. Think of it as the "City of London", post-British Empire world of finance but now, becoming more and more of the American landscape than let's say "What's good for GE is good for America" like back in the 60s/70s.

All and all, if one's a true STEM graduate then it's probably best to take the Patent agent exam and work in that area, as oppose to R&D, if one's worried about their job getting offshored. Patent work still needs to be done by an American national via regulation.

[mguy]

Most areas of finance don't require a knowledge of derivatives. They are a recent invention in the field of finance. A person would need to have a college education and a master's degree but an Ivy League degree isn't any better than a regular degree in terms of intelligence. What matters is if the person understands what they are doing in their area of finance. Like I said, derivatives isn't needed in most areas of finance. If you are talking about understanding how options work and utilizing options in stocks or futures then I would say anyone can self-learn and fully understand how to trade them and the theories on how they work. If a person wants to use formulas and try to determine the value based on their own calculations then they would need specialized education. Calculating the value of derivatives and using complex formulas does require a formal education. Understanding finance and being able to be successful in finance does not. There are stock brokers, researchers, analysts, investment bankers, financial planners, portfolio managers, hedge fund managers, and numerous other choices for finance.

I think you underestimate the complexity of finance. Finance is one the ultimate sciences that is developing technological breakthroughs. Forget about the theory you learn in classrooms, today's world is the world of algorithmic trading which I will break down for you as I have some experience in Kendell square.

Have you heard of AI? This intelligence is largely being developed to push the frontiers of finance. AI which is the summation of all computer science, neural, and pretty much all the sciences, will be so STRONG that anyone who possesses this WEAPON will win 99 out of 100 times.

Imagine a world where you want to buy a house. If you want the most accurate price of the house, you must consult an AI. Only an AI will have the capacity to price a house based on what is knowable. Cracks on the earth? Wind speed? Geo-politics and EVER SINGLE THING that is knowable will be used by AI finance engine to compute a price for the house.

Any pricing that is done without AI is considered wrong and thus non-economical (and highly exploitable). Imagine if you were a finance lord, imagine how much power you possess in knowing all that which is knowable and be able to determine a price based on the information. This kind of power will be in the hands of the elite! And they will get richer 99 times out of 100.

The AI is not complete yet. There are tons of money from Finance that is employing the best minds that money can buy, and it is a worthwhile investment for them as the power will be infinite once it is complete. Of course an AI will bleed into policy.. government.. and the likes.. but principally, AI will be a tool of finance to establish a permanent class. That is why finance is one of the most complex sciences there is in existence at this point in time -- it is the summation of all to squeeze the extra "edge".

[Tsar]

I have heard of algorithmic trading, flash trading, and computerized trading but I think those systems are more related to fields of computer science and engineering. Computer science is very important in the financial sector. Anyone that has those systems can do better because those programs can scan everything down to fractions of a second. Flash trading is in the hands of the elite and it causes a lot of controversy because it gives an unfair advantage to certain elite traders and businesses.

[Teal Lantern]

It goes to tell you the non producers are taking the world completely over from the producers. Finance? last I saw the FED was buying all it's own bonds in order to eject the necessary credit to keep the system from collapsing.

Most of your truly intelligent people have figured out the current college gig is to turn out droids just like the military in order to service and prop up the credit monopolies levers of power the printing press.

400 years ago, trading tulips looked like the end-all, be-all and for a while SOME people made a good living at it.
300 years ago, it was trading shares in the Mississippi Company. For a while SOME people made a good living at it.
Right now, trading digits (high frequency trading) is in fashion, looks like the end-all, be-all and SOME people make a very good living at it.

For all of that time and more, farming, roofing, tanning, textiles, shipping, building houses, etc. have quietly ticked along in the background.
Real world production is what creates enough excess wealth to fund the fads, not the other way around.

[S_Parc]

A point on AI/GA, etc, with high frequency, intermediate arbitrage, or position trading is that ultimately, these processes can determine correlation, however, they can't find causation. In other words, at best, they can give a type of optimization between the fundamentals of research analysis & then, technical analysis, including non-linear indicators like fractals and Fibonacci patterns. So while this gives market markers and the dealing desks a leg up, against the layperson (a.k.a. dumb money), it doesn't give 'em psychic abilities to know the future.

Where AI will do most of its damage is on existing white collar careers where a lot of the work isn't exactly innovative but requires a lot of data crunching & presentation of that information. This includes accountants, financial analysts, actuaries, and even engineers in QA and production support. And with robotics, this would also include many of the blue collar jobs out there.

[Moretorque]

Wait a second here, if I am not mistaken all credit starts from the central bank weather they sell bonds + interest or by the bonds + interest to inject currency into the system to run the economies. Then all the money gets multiplied buy fractional reserve lending and is all promised to be payed back to the credit monopoly + interest

This is creating permanent servitude to them for the rest of us, tulip producers produce something of value for us.

Then they set up elaborate systems to skim the credit back into themselves along the way from everybody else as the money is getting paid back + interest to the central bank.

As Thomas Edison said, a government can surely issue it's own currency if it can issue a bond for that currency as both are just promises to pay but the system we are under now where we produce bonds to a currency issuer fattens the usurer's rather than the producers.

I believe people should do something productive in this world, the system is totally parasitic.