November 24th, 2007, 9:48 am
1) I am sort of with Meteor, and would add that it is not a case of it not being important, but that the factors often mostly cancel out. A zero net resultant does not mean you don't have forces acting.2) I have noticed a slight correlation between stats and trading, but nothing major and I may be wrong.3) Applied maths is typically better for quant work.But, there is another point; what are you best at ?The career prospects when you are doing the type of maths you excel at are much better than being mediocre at something more popular.Also of course, I would never advise anyone to stick to a pure applied maths curriculum or pure stats.When you go for the best jobs, they will fire both types of question at you, and this reflects that what you are being paid to do is solve problems and think up new ideas.You are not being paid to be a statistician or an applied mathematician, and I would emphasise you are not employe to be anything at all, you are emplyed to do, and the doing is the making of money.That means if the problem involves stats you do stats, if it's PDEs, you do MC or FDM, it it's programming you do C++ or VBA.A lot of what people call "creativity" is actually the someone smart enough to steal ideas from different domains and glue them together. Look at how the Black Scholes equation was solved and derived, bits of economics nailed together with the maths of heat physics. You can get a Nobel prize for shit like that....or at least a decent bonus.