It's the best answer I've gotten so far....Dilbert's Theorem on Salary states that engineers and scientists never earnas much salary as business executives, sales people & Management guys.This theorem can now be supported by a mathematical equation based onthe following three postulates:Postulate 1: Knowledge is Power (Knowledge=Power)Postulate 2: Time is Money (Time=Money)Postulate 3 (as every engineer knows): Power =Work/TimeIt therefore follows:Knowledge = Work / Timeand sinceTime = Money, we have:Knowledge =Work / Money.Solving for Money, we get:Money = Work/KnowledgeThus, as Knowledge approaches zero, Money approaches infinity, regardlessof the amount of Work done.Conclusion 1: The Less you Know, the More you Make.Conclusion 2: This is the reason why your BOSS is paid more.----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, that was pretty funny But the way I read it, the less knowledge you have, the more money you'll waste.So, if you don't know why you're not getting hired, developing your mathematical acumen will get you nowhere.MP

QuoteSo, if you don't know why you're not getting hired, developing your mathematical acumen will get you nowhere.MPFunny you mention that. I seem to be in that boat myself. You would think a Business/Finance major with *strong* mathematics background and a 3.72 GPA should be a diamond in the rough, but I guess the market's proven me wrong. Perhaps that's why I'm so bitter about things... hmmm...

QuoteYou would think a Business/Finance major with *strong* mathematics background and a 3.72 GPA should be a diamond in the roughTrain,I think you need to re-phrase your use of language on the forum. Your statements are derogatory to individuals with a finance background, if you have these thoughts keep them to yourself.Moreover, see the post "The #1 Skill You Need To Have", a discussion on the key skills you need to attain a successful career in the markets. Perhaps a read of this will establish why you have been unsuccessful in your job search.Regards,Skyrats

Remember work is not just exertion, it must also have a result (ie. causing the displacement of an object). Those who exert do not necessarily work. One of the largest complaints that you will get about overly quantitative people is that they exert a lot of intellecutal force against a problem but show no results. If you'd like to get some exposure to a trading/sales kind of environment, learn how to play poker. Or better yet Liar's poker, it should get you familiar with the bid process and information costs. You and your buddies can be off and playing for about $20 a piece.

Remember work is not just exertion, it must also have a result (ie. causing the displacement of an object). Those who exert do not necessarily work. One of the largest complaints that you will get about overly quantitative people is that they exert a lot of intellecutal force against a problem but show no results. I just heard one of our managers complaining about this [regarding our resident quant] a few months ago.

Skyrats, I don't understand why you think my statements are derogatory. What you are saying makes no sense considering that I myself have a finance background. Also, even if for some strange reason you think my statements are "derogatory", have you read other members' posts??? I KNOW I have seen some statements posted by other members that were highly sarcastic and derogatory to myself as well as perhaps others. I appreciate your trying to give me advice and hope you will continue to do so, but I simply do not understand where you are coming from in your last message.

Having spent most of my life on the (wrong/right) other side of the pond, I am always curious to understand this GPA (et al.) thing. Recently I had to fill in a job application form and a query about a whole list of these things (SAT, CAT, MAT, GPA, PSI... ) none of which I had a clue about, so I just put "Did OK". Can someone enlighten me on the exact definition of some of these metrics?By the way, not to miss out on a moan, what is with employers these days? Only a few years ago they wanted to know if you knew anything, maybe at max if you had a personality lurking somewhere under your clothes? Now an interview process is more like a trip to the Scientologists; tissue samples, blood samples, medicals, and more personal questions than I get from my parents. What is going on here, am I really that attractive or are they planning to clone me anyhow if the thing falls through?Finally I'm afraid the gap in the whole paradox is the assumptions: in my experience:Ignorance == bliss == power.

And while you're at it, get some Botox injections. WSJ column says this is the latest way to get a leg up on the competition.Getting rid of wrinkles and "angry looks" via Botox is apparently now important to you type-A's out there interviewing for Sales and Marketing jobs.Guess experience and smarts is not as important as looks.Jeez!

I think many job candidates may be picking up a broadcast message not intended for them, or a broadcast message rather than a narrowcast message.For 95% of people, the reason why you can't get a job at Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs out of college, is because you aren't smart enough, you're slow.But then the 5% of people with abilites in quantitative finance, for instance, are still fighting the wrong battle. You may already be smarter than you need to be.Everybody I've met who works for Goldman Sachs has three characteristics in common, 1) stupid, 2) happy, and 3) good at math. Their professors liked them.Are you truly mathematically extraordinary? If you're not, you may want to complement what skills you do have with a few units of "plays well with others."It is true, you have made up the gap preventing most people from getting the job you want. But you may not have made up the gap preventing you.So, unless you are that 1-in-a-million loony, don't fight a math competion which you can't win. Finagle a change of venue. Be mature, a real human being.Sad thing is, most of you pretty-smart kids would probably be perfect employees, given another few years to settle down and figure out how the world works.If somebody else, who is your same age, has had his brain transition into an adult brain more quickly than you, he may be more simple, that is the breaks.MP**Mind you, I have never once, in my entire life, gotten within a thousand miles of a job I would have half way liked, so chances are pretty good I am way off the mark

Arvind,I'm going to attempt to give you some friendly advice because you remind me of how I used to think several years ago. It's not meant to be derogatory, so please don't take it that way.You may be a great engineer or mathematician, you may even be a mathematical genius for all I know, but the point is that being very skilled in a specific, esoteric area does not entitle one to a job. Being great at solving PDE's is useful, but keep in mind that there are lots of people, and even some off the shelf software packages, that can solve PDEs.Good grades from a respected school and coursework in relevant areas are signalling devices that may get you an interview, but they certainly won't get you a job on their own. And even as criteria to get an interview, they may not be sufficient because people also look at prior work experience, publications, participation in various non-financial acitivites, military service, or any of a thousand other things.The attitude "I'm smart, the world should beat a path to my door" will get you nowhere. It's up to you to demonstrate that you are valuable, and being good at some mathematical techniques isn't sufficiently valuable for most employers. You should talk to people working in the industry and find out as much as you can about what quants and traders actually do (I don't spend a majority of my time solving PDEs )To that extent, these forums are a valuable resource. Some of your comments on this and other threads indicate to me that you are kind of thin-skinned and don't take criticism well. If I were thinking about hiring you, that would be a very strong negative. Maybe I got the wrong impression about you, but keep in mind that I came to that conclusion with a lot more information and time than most employers will spend looking at your resume. I think it is to your advantage to try to get as much information from people on this forum as you can. If you think I or someone else is full of s***, that's fine, but attacking people is going to make them very unlikely to want to share information with you.

What you're describing reminds me the "old way of thinking" in our french elite a few years ago...Of course they were graduate from the top schools, they'd worked like hell during their "classes preparatoires" but they thought the world would belong to them forever...until that time in the 80's when the rumor started with some: "wow, it took 3 monthes for one of these Polytechnique-ENA guy to find a decent job! do you realize?!"...and nowadays a prestigious resume is always a good thing, but it does not make the man...particulary in high pressure environments where you have to be very reactive, to take the right decision at the right moment and assume you errors...you hardly learn these kinds of things during your studies I think...

JabairuStork wrote:<blockquote>Quote<hr>find out as much as you can about what quants and traders actually do<hr></blockquote>Ditto^googleplexTraders review models, have meetings with whiteboards, swap kung fu on each other's maths, but after that are swimming in a very different pool. The math is only part of the job.The #1 thread emphasizes, and it is true, that fitting in with the team or firm's personality is the number one criteria. In every firm I have been happy in (and made $ and promotions) that has been true, and every firm I have been unhappy in (begrudged them every cent they underpaid me, thought the folks were psychotic syphlitic sphincters) that also has been true. Find an interview where you feel you can be yourself and then be yourself and that will be the place.Contrary to MobPsycho's assessment of Goldman people, I always have found them intelligent, perhaps focused to the point of narrowness and rigidity, but never "stupid." I work buy side so I see Goldman analysts or i-bankers at least once a week or more. Each house has its flaws, but "stupid" people are not one of Goldman's.

I said this in another post a while back. But because it is one of the few things about which I am confident I am right, I am going to repeat it THE NUMBER-ONE STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS OF A TYPICAL COLLEGE STUDENT IS NOT SO MUCH ANY PARTICULAR STRENGTH OR WEAKNESS, BUT SIMPLY NOT KNOWING WHAT HIS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES ARE.The tragedy is, there is little incentive for an employer, or even a professor, to tip you off as to why he gave you the thumbs down. So ask, and listen!It is easy to assume that the criteria you think are important are all possible criteria, or that the people you compare yourself to are representative...Blah...MP

*******Contrary to MobPsycho's assessment of Goldman people, I always have found them intelligent, perhaps focused to the point of narrowness and rigidity, but never "stupid."*******That is precisely my point!The types of criteria we will be judged on are broadcast as an absolute, as if measured against some ether. But it is very difficult for people recognize where they, themselves stand as measured against that absolute.I mean, who thinks of "happy" as a criterion to get a job at Goldman Sachs? But measured from my frame of reference, I would probably have to become much, much more of an oblivious puppy dog to get through the door.Or, measured relative to the typical Goldman employee I've met, I probably find myself on the opposite sides of the math/smarts relationship from most people, who have gotten a high-school or college education in math.Just being on one side or the other of somebody on some axis, doesn't put you there on the compensation axis. More likely, you want to be close to employed people on all axes, while comparisons to fellow students are a weak baseline.But why waffle, eh? Goldman people are such little children, they actually inspire a maternal instinct in me, for fear for their very safety. Sweet little things! I want to wrap them up in warm blankets and feed them cupcakes MP