The SAT test is useful because it allows recruiters to sort millions of candidates and select the small fraction who merit further evaluation. Most likely Shaw hires less than 10% of those applicants who have perfect scores, and no doubt their other proprietary sorting and evaluation methods get them many hires whom their competitors would reject merely because they didn't make the SAT cutoff. In 20+ years of recruiting the best of the best, they have no doubt gleaned much non-obvious valuable insight into the recruiting process. There's every reason to think they are as good at that as they are at computational investment strategies and bioinformatics.

QuoteOriginally posted by: NYCfundThere's every reason to think they are as good at that as they are at computational investment strategies and bioinformatics.How would an objective person judge if they are even any good at bioinformatics? Is there a Journal of Bioinformatics or something? Have they won any awards or otherwise been distinguished or recognized within the bioinformatics community? Have they made any money at it?And how does the average person know that "bioinformatics" isn't just some made up crank field?

I am surprised that many still do not know of the very significant level of attention and resources that the global academic and scientific community is now devoting to Bioinformatics. For those who are late getting up to speed, start here and then browse the websites of the American Ivy League Universities for additional significant developments. Dr. Shaw has returned to the faculty at Columbia U to assist in their development of the field.http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.or ... 7aShaw,D.E. et al. (2007) Anton, a special-purpose machine for molecular dynamics simulation. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer Architecture. California, USA.

QuoteOriginally posted by: NYCfundI think it is widely known that Shaw pays entry level well above market and what is less widely reported is that there are numerous Shaw executives who earn more than the current CEOs of 20th Century investment banks. that's ridiculous. CEO of many fortune 500 companies make over $50 -- $100 million a year. how many dES employees make that much?

QuoteOriginally posted by: NYCfundI am surprised that many still do not know of the very significant level of attention and resources that the global academic and scientific community is now devoting to Bioinformatics. I know some postdocs in bioinformatics. They make about $50K a year and hope to switch to do some developer work at some investment banks one day.

QuoteOriginally posted by: NYCfundShaw,D.E. et al. (2007) Anton, a special-purpose machine for molecular dynamics simulation. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer Architecture. California, USA.N-dimensional simulation is pretty cool. But I will say what I said earlier: Anton is a flop. So while Shaw may have had a lot of fun, I suspect he didn't accomplish jack. I don't think there were any areas of the Anton project where new things were learned, and new knowledge was added to any field. I don't think there is even much to learn from the mistake.I also have not accomplished anything in N-dimensional simulation, so I consider myself peers with Mr. Shaw. I hold him in the same esteem which I hold myself, when it comes to the field of bioinformatics. I would not brag about it.To get better detail and more time, you have to make the simulation more efficient. To do that, the topology of the machine has to be more isomorphous with the phenomenon being modeled.

QuoteOriginally posted by: KackToodlesQuote Think about it. Smart people can tell if you're smart or not by interviewing you for a couple of hours. They don't have to ask for your high school SAT scores and your GPA from 10 years ago. That's as irrelevant as putting a toad in a kettle under your bed. I would accede with your statement. (It's only partly true). Secondly, "great" GRE/SAT (read: 1550+) scores are pretty indicative of a "superior" ability. I guess not everyone can get a perfect or a near perfect GRE/SAT score, right? I really cannot comment on the GPA thing because at certain places it tends to be highly inflated. Probably, they're scouring for "natural" geniuses and not "late-bloomers"

QuoteOriginally posted by: KackToodles so difficult, in fact, that it's impossible to hire tens of thousands of such geniuses. there aint that many geniuses in the world. And if you're really that smart, why do you want to be a cube monkey at a large corporation instead of going to med school or starting your own hedge fund or company? I think the term "genius" is vague. I have heard they ( D E Shaw) have "putnam fellows" (You know how difficult the "Putnam" is) on their list of eminent staff, certainly such achievements qualify one for being labelled a genius. Secondly, there is a factor which makes really smart people to be a cube monkey in a large corporation and it is: luck Better to earn some "constant" dough rather than risk your monetary savings on a start-up-- whose probability of becoming the next "Google" is really minute.

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmer And they love to be thrown bones in the form of patronizing little compliments: Are you a genius? Yes, you are a genius. You know, you have a gift, I envy you. Being a manager is nothing but hassles, I wish I could just do my own thing in front of a computer all day, just like you! Everybody, look at the genius! Haha, that's really witty. Patronizing little compliments? Gee, their site says people aren't patronizing or arrogant at the workplace. Have you worked at Shaw, farmer? Were you offered those "tasty" bones (little compliments?)???

At Shaw, there are many Putnam and Math Olympiad vets and other precocious individuals who have accumulated personal wealth in the tens and hundreds of $$millions. No doubt that gets the attention of other such naturally gifted individuals when it comes time to consider career plans.

QuoteOriginally posted by: NYCfundAt Shaw, there are many Putnam and Math Olympiad vets and other precocious individuals who have accumulated personal wealth in the tens and hundreds of $$millions. No doubt that gets the attention of other such naturally gifted individuals when it comes time to consider career plans.I don't understand what you mean. I think the people who work at Shaw are an assortment-- a mix of math, humanities etc. I'm just guessing this from their site-- I haven't worked at Shaw.

Shaw seems to be the only employer on Wall Street that recruits by appealing to what applicants think of themselves. The only other employer I can think of that does this is the US military. Can you think of any others?

Finance. I did not mean to suggest that the genius employees are the only ones who have made huge fortunes at Shaw, only that each year's crop of the most select -- such as Putnam and Olympiad prodigies -- can see a path to vast wealth signing on there straight out of college. Their prospects for 9-figure fortunes in academic or engineering careers are less evident.

QuoteOriginally posted by: NYCfundprecocious individuals who have accumulated personal wealth in the tens and hundreds of $$millions.Children have made millions? There is no such thing as a precocious adult. It is being a child, coupled with some other characteristic, that makes one precocious.I am glad it works for you. But there is something about this gifted-child theme that really lights up the weird meter when talking about old people.

QuoteOriginally posted by: Finance1987Have you worked at Shaw, farmer?Close. I am David Shaw and NYCfund is my EVP. You didn't recognize the good-cop/bad-cop routine?