wilmott.com

Hola,I'm in an FE program and need to pick one class out of these classes:Market & Credit Risk ManagementElements of Structured FinanceLinear and Quadratic OptimizationMy background: PhD in physics, very strong in mathematics and programming. Finance itself is not really my strength, although it is my newly chosen career path. Even so, my math training is more along the lines of topology/differential geometry/analysis than probability/stats/measure theory/stochastic calc. So maybe it's more fair to say that I have "mathematical sophistication" than actual mathematical knowledge as far as being a quant goes.Anyhow, I'm stumped over which of those 3 classes I should pick. Here are my thoughts:1. Market & Credit Risk Management: Seems like a good class for me, especially since it's not very "mathy". I need more finance, less math to become well-rounded.2. I feel like I should at least have one class in structured finance, especially since it's such a huge field. But on the other hand, I'm fairly sure that I should not aim for a S.F. job given today's outlook on the entire sector. My interest in this class is more as a "survey class" than on a class to strengthen my specific career objectives. Note that I really don't know what area of finance I want to go into yet. I simply (think I) know that structured finance is not a wise choice ATM. But I feel like I should at least take a course on the topic.3. Is linear and quadratic optimization really so useful that it deserves an entire semester long class? That seems like overkill to me. Does one really need this much linear/quadratic optimization? Sounds boring, but maybe I'm completely wrong and it can turn out to be a fun class.Given that I'll probably be looking for a job in about a year, and I'm really open to any branch of finance that will keep me employed in a good job, does anyone have any thoughts on which of these 3 classes would be most useful to me?Thanks!

Given your background, you should be able to learn #3 on your own.Personally, I would take #2 if I were in your shoes. Here's why. First, yes, many structures are history -- but structured products, in general will survive and can be very interesting.Second, why would somebody hire you for #1 if you didn't understand the products/issues in #2?Since either course could substantially overlap the other, why don't you post a syllabus for #1 and #2 for better informed comments.

Excellent, thank you! I was definitely leaning in the direction of #2, although it was because I wanted a well-rounded education, not because I thought SF was going to survive (I mistakenly thought the whole field was toast). On the other hand, I really need to keep a practical head on my shoulders. I had 8 long but fun years learning what I wanted to learn and giving in to my intellectual curiosity. After nearly a decade, it's time to be more pragmatic in my approach to education.I couldn't find the syllabus for the classes, but here are the course descriptions:Elements of Structured FinanceThe course objective is to allow students to analyze the basic credit quality of securitizations backed by commodity asset types (mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, CDOs). Mastery of the material in this course will let the student model and evaluate the credit impact of collateral or structural alternatives. Hands-on work is both extensive and preparatory to the advanced level.Market and Credit Risk ManagementThis course covers qualitative and quantitative aspects of the financial risk associated with managing financial portfolios and with credit default. Topics include: market risk, VaR and stress testing, model risk, spot and forward risk, credit default risk and credit derivatives.