Be me

Sure sure. Nice words you learned today. But go back to my question.

When was the last time you heard some intelligent kid go major in economics, business or finance?

And I don't mean like your average guy. I mean like the kids who were the top of your class back in high school. Has ever like that ever cared about those lowly careers? No, never. Not a single fucking time. This never happens.

You are so wrong, on so many levels, I am just flabbergasted. This is what happens when Veeky Forums bankrupt from creativity creates a bunch of shit memes that 17 year olds come on the board and assume it is dogma.

Ok, I'll keep biting.

You know what the kid who was the top of my class in HS went to major in?

Medicine.

Now say yours. I bet it is nothing to do with such lowly majors.

Who gives a fuck what your Central Wyoming Magnet School for the Gifted valedictorian did?

Go read up about mathematical modelling of economics. You need a solid understanding of stochastic calc, ODEs, PDEs, Markov Chains, Continuous vs Discrete systems, a lot of linear algebra, probability, etc.

Most graduate programs in economics require at least 3 semesters of Calc, 2 semesters of linear algebra, a semester of real analysis, and multiple courses in statistics and probability theory.

Of course the undergrad program is a lot easier. Not everyone in econ is smart, but neither is everyone in math or CS. Just think of those numberphile-esque types that possess neither the IQ nor work ethic to succeed in mathematics who major in the program, or mouthbreading autists who can't program in basic languages who drop out of CS after realizing its basically applied math and not video game design.

Source: Joint Honours Mathematics and Economics student in year 4.

Yeah - a lot of the kids in undergrad are the wannabe Wolf of Wall Street types - but they drop out.

>When was the last time you heard some intelligent kid go major in economics, business or finance?

It might be because I live in the suburbs of NYC, but Economics is popular here. Economics majors are also quite smart if we go by their test scores. I am not sure how far into Calculus they go, but they take a lot of Discrete Math classes.

To piggyback

Why are economics majors dumb? Why stop there? Why aren't people who haven't completed a PhD by 20 dumb?

Economics majors, based on GRE Scores --> IQ Average 128. That's higher than every discipline of engineering aside from materials. Its second only to mathematics, physics, and materials eng.

No one does, but it is important for the discussion I am bringing up.

No genius EVER studies economics or finance. Not one of them. Because those subjects are trivial and dumb.

Your definition of genius is completely arbitrary

Oh, I am being very generous.

If I defined genius to be the ultra autism 300 IQ kids then you would be fucked because those guys study only physics or math.

I am being generous by allowing merely talented people to count as geniuses and we see that talented people study math, physics, engineering, CS, medicine.

But finance or economics? I've never seen it.

How much do I have to lower the standards of 'genius' for me to be wrong? A genius is anyone who passes high school? Kek

Do you just ignore the 500 people who have graduated cumma sum laude at Harvard and go into politics?

Why the hell does everyone want to become a quant all of a sudden?

As a math major I can kind of see the appeal, still it doesn't seem like one of those jobs you "want". It's more like something you end up when you can't find a post doc position.

>Do you just ignore the 500 people who have graduated cumma sum laude at Harvard and go into politics?

I don't ignore them... but we have to be serious about it. Graduating summa cum laude is not a measure of geniusness, it is a measure of GPA. It is a well known fact that in some majors, keeping a high GPA is waaaaaaaaaay easier than in others.

Or do you also praise the summa cum laude graduates in gender studies? I bet there are many too. But they are all faaar faaaaaar away from being geniuses.

So the measure of geniusness cannot be the major because then we get into problems. Which is why I use either the autism/IQ measure that never fails. If your kid has 300 IQ then you can guarantee he is a genius. Even if IQ is a meme, if you have Terence Tao's IQ you are genius. And also superior high school achievement as it is only high school when everyone takes roughly the same classes.

Obviously, both of those measures are flawed in their own way but nowhere as flawed as GPA, as I just explained why.

Well, there is a point where every brainlet and average person realizes their own mediocrity and they understand that they will never get the good job, being a top, six figures paid professor of mathematics.

After you realize that then you also realize that the next best thing after an intellectually rewarding career is a financially rewarding career, so you go for that.

Can't blame them honestly. I'll do the same if I won't make it as an academic.

All the smart people in my class majored in engineering.

You keep referring to high school as if someone performance in high school is any kind of indicator of higher intelligence. There are very quantitatively gifted people working in the development teams of major banks and hedge funds. I honestly didnt want to have to reply to you again because you are so ignorant its obscene but there was a movement about 10 or 20 years ago where a vast number of physicists and mathematicians quit their academic jobs and went to work for big banks developing most of their trading technology. A few examples are Mark Joshi, who got his PhD in pure math at MIT, Alex Kuznetsov, a Ukranian condensed matter physicist who wrote the book being recommended in this thread, and David Shaw who started a billion dollar hedge fund after getting his PhD in computer science from Stanford. Hopefully this has taught you to stop running your mouth on shit you know nothing about christ almighty...

Why are you going on a weird tangent about banks and shit.

You know why the banks wanted physicists and mathematicians?

Because traditional bankers who major in finace, economics and business ARE TOO MUCH OF BRAINLETS TO DO IT THEMSELVES. That is just how it works.

And I use high school because it is the best measure we have for talent. It is at least a measure of outstanding, when it comes to academics. You cannot deny that the top guy in your class back in high school was smart. Maybe he was not a genius, but he is certified SMART and guess what, he didn't major in economics or anything like that. No one with any kind of above average intelligence does and that is my point.

I am not saying economics is a brainlet field. I am saying it is a field of brainlets and every couple of decades some mathematician has to come in and invent a theory for them to circle jerk around for the next decades, until some other mathematician decides to give them some handouts pre-packaged as a new theory of economics.

We've seen it time to time in history. First the elementary algebra, then elementary calculus, then non-trivial calculus, then game theory. All inventions of mathematicians that economiists could technically have invented themselves (specially game theory because all the pieces were already there, you just had to put them together) but they were too dumb so Papa Nash had to come in and say "Okay, enough is enough. You guys are a bunch of brainlets. I don't want you crashing the economy of my country so here, take game theory. Use it to be less retarded."

Spoken like someone who doesn't even work as a quant in the real world

Why would you want to be a quant when the higher paying jobs at investment banks recruit undergraduates? I mean sales people, traders, and investment bankers. These people recruit students of all majors.

Why would you do a fucking PhD just to get a particular non academia job? That's fucking retarded. A PhD is a real commitment, not popping in and out like some IT cert.

You are an ignorant kiddie who thinks that jobs that require "le hard maths" pay more than jobs that don't require maths. There's no shame in that, the education system has misled you. But if you still believe this after you have done some research, you should be ashamed.

I just looked through this topic and people are mixing up economics, finance in academia, and finance in practice.

Look, I'm no Chad, not one bit. But you know why people on the internet go on and fucking on about becoming quants? Because they want to think that they can sit in their rooms and study maths and have a high paying job at the end. If you are a maths of physics student who happens to get a PhD (which requires more hard work and lower pay than most jobs) and then decide not to go in to academia of course being a quant may be a good option. But planning right this second to study for 4 years of undergrad and 3 years of a PhD (in the UK, more in the USA) so you can apply for one particular type of job which doesn't even pay that much compared to other parts of the bank? That's dumb

The top guy in my highschool class was ME and I'm talking to YOU. Highschool means NOTHING.
>Why are you going on a weird tangent about banks and shit.
Your claim was that people who go into business, economics, finance are brainlets. You have reiterated that point here, and is equally wrong. You fail to comprehend that not everyone going into these fields are trained as quantitative professionals. You then twist your rhetoric into saying that the only smart people that go into these fields are those that were previously trained as mathematicians or physicists, and this is an arbitrary definition once again. Your entire philosophy about academia is complete nonsense and there are a million counter examples.
Vern Poythress - won a Putnam and 1964, PhD in math from harvard, went on to become a preacher.
Dolph Ludgren, "genius" IQ, engineering scholarship from MIT, actor in B list action movies
In addition, you cant even be accepted to Harvard Business School without an extremely high GRE, and since you love this intelligence test bullshit so much the correlation with GRE would suggest all the applicants have an IQ over 130. Thats just the applicants. Go to the rhetoric store and return this one and get your money back please

>Why would you want to have more options? Just do an undergrad and become a trader lmao.

Not OP but maybe I can explain.

>I mean sales people, traders, and investment bankers.

To be quite honest being a sales person and trader sounds like shit. I think that the "glamour" of quants is that they work in the back of the company. They get some info for the people working in the front and then they apply their statistics and numerical analysis, crunch some numbers and then call a meeting with everyone else. Then go back to crunching numbers.

I personally do not want to talk to many people. I would like to work as far in the back as possible. Preferably communicating only via emails and having a private office where no one could see me.

>Why would you do a fucking PhD just to get a particular non academia job?

This is obviously true. For non academic jobs a Masters is all you need and even then you could end up "overqualified".

IB only recruit from undergrad at the top of top universities and the pay is not "big bux" although it is very well paying by the definition of anyone with sense. The point is though that you will never be one of those quantitative VP's who optimizes trading strategies in the front desk making $500K+ doing math, that only happens to the really smart dudes who have their PhD's.

>The top guy in my highschool class was ME and I'm talking to YOU.

Lol really? Holy fuck. What a low achiever. You could have done so much better. Why economics man? What a bad field to go if you are above average. Become an engineer and get mad pussy and money.

>You fail to comprehend that not everyone going into these fields are trained as quantitative

No, I understand that. And people who are not trained in a quantitative and rigorous manner... are brainlets. You cannot deny this.

If we talk about traditional intelligence which usually means good at puzzles and mathematics, then people who do not take mathematically intensive majors are brainlets.

Sure, you may talk about your other ""talents"" and that is fine but your talent is not traditional intelligence. You are categorically a brainlet.

Now, I may be a creative-let or a dance-let but I am not a brainlet and it is important to make that distinction. If you are not good at math then you are not traditionally smart.

>Vern Poythress - won a Putnam and 1964, PhD in math from harvard, went on to become a preacher.

I bet he was the best preacher the world has ever had. Judging by his PhD in non-brainletics.

>Dolph Ludgren, "genius" IQ, engineering scholarship from MIT, actor in B list action movies

And I bet he is a great actor.

You are again going on a huge tangent that has nothing to do with my point. I don't care about where smart people go after graduating, I care about where smart people go to graduate! What do they major in.

The heart of my question: To what fields are objectively intelligent people attracted?

The answer? Mathematics, physics and engineering. Almost exclusively.

Anyways, if you were the valedictorian of your class and you went to study economics then something must have corrupted your mind. Or maybe you were not that good at mathematics but everyone else was worse than you. Oh well. I guess mistakes happens. Not everyone can be perfect.

>The answer? Mathematics, physics and engineering. Almost exclusively.
Not if they want to make money.

>Not if they want to make money.

Above average people always get to thrive in those careers. And even mediocre people in academia earn middle class wages, which is fine. And those who go into business also make aboe middle class wages, as you can see from employment statistics like the ones posted in payscale. Pretty good m8.

Obviously, no one is richer than businessmen. If you own the business then almost all the profit goes to you and that is okay but wealth is not a measure of intelligence because your talent does not have to be intelligence to make a good business. There are many different talents that make you a succesful businessman. So smart businesspeople are not necessarily traditionally smart. They are business-smart.

Intelligence is not defined. You're a quantitative shill but apparently appreciate illdefined verbage, figure that one out. All you have said is that the best mathematicians are mathematicians.

>Intelligence is not defined.

It IS defined. Traditional intelligence is always associated with some kind of mathematical talent.

No one hears a good singer and says "wow, you are a genius!". Well, except for the broadway snobs so deep in their brainlettery they want to call anyone a genius.

When people call some other person smart it is usually because that person is unusually good at mathematics. You know this, I know this. Everyone knows this. Mathematics is traditional intelligence.

>You're a quantitative shill but apparently appreciate illdefined verbage

I just defined intelligence for you m8. Intelligence is the specific talent of understanding abstract concepts.

> All you have said is that the best mathematicians are mathematicians.

No, I said that everyone who is traditionally smart majors in mathematics, physics, engineering and medicine.

And I did not say the best mathematicians are mathematicians. I say that the best economists are mathematicians. Not only that history shows us that the best physicists are mathematicians (Newton, Villani), the best computer scientists are mathematicians (Knuth, Turing), the best everything are mathematicians.

But that is also not my point. But it works, really. The smartest people always major in mathematics. Then, after having an education in mathematics, their passions sometimes take them elsewhere and they become great writers, computer scientists, physicists, engineers, etc. That is, in my opinion, the absolute power of traditional intelligence (as defined above).

Yeah Keynes, Edison, the Wright brothers, Ford, Green, Watt, all politicians, pihlosophers etc were all well known for that outstanding math abilities. It is clear mathematicians drive every industry. Every other day one has someone applying algebraic conbinatorics to fight the great ills of our era.

This whole conversation is stupid as shit because math is just a language and up to a certain level doesn't even require any kind of abstract thinking associated with "Einstein" genius or whatever you faggots want to call it. Its not like mechanical engineers learn anything of that sort. It basically reminds me of that meme where you have all the guys lined up in order of "purity" and if you really wanted to you could put philosophers at the very end, the point is that a debate of purity is nonsensical. If an outstanding work is done in a field it is attributed to that field, it is not "appropriated" by the history of math academia because the guy who discovered it was good at math.

Why do you think people who go into medicine are objectively smart but not business? This objectively makes no sense.

Because I've seen it. A couple of the top people back in HS went into medicine.

The same for business does not happen. I've never seen anyone particularly smart going to study business.

This guy basically said everything that needed to be said about this topic.

That's not even that advanced math...

>Economist
>Falling for the IQ meme
You economitards are truly dumb and you are the proof

Econometrics monkeys don't even touch upon the REAL mathematics behind all those things, they don't learn any topology, measure theory or advanced linear algebra.

Advanced linear algebra and measure theory is required for econometrics. Topology? No.
Economics is a social science that uses mathematical modelling to approximate reality. However, just like in physics, we can only approximate. Massive systems underpinning the global economy cannot even be approximated in their behaviour by the most advanced supercomputers available, just as particle physics can't. Again, go look at mathematical foundations of econometrics. A PhD in Econ is a trick into doing a math PhD whilst heavily emphasizing statistics and applied mathematics. So what if you're not doing Hilbert or Godel? Economics is far and away dissimilar from "business majors" like administration or marketing. Go look at dynamical systems and applications of statistical mechanics for example. B admin and mark. majors don't need this. Not even at the PhD level.
By your definition, anyone who isn't literally Hilbert, Godel, or Einstein is a "brainlet". Anyone who is not a PhD in mathematics or physics currently working in research in a "brainlet". What an exclusive definition. Do you really believe that anyone who isn't 1/10 000 is stupid? That's quite foolish. If not - again - look at the 128 IQ average GRE stat. That corresponds to about 1/32 or the top of a decent sized high school class.

Maybe go look at Friedman, Keynes, Von Neumann (worked on econ), Hayek, Stiglitz, Krugman, and even Bernanke and Yellen. These people aren't stupid. Economics requires a lot of mathematics and a lot of conceptual understanding of variable behaviour which is non-intuititve. We rely on data and empirics as well as theory.

Economics - The study of the allocation and distribution of scarce resources to satisfy an unlimited number of needs and wants, as well as the study of individualized behavioural preferences and decision making theory. Just from this alone we can determine that stochastic calc, continous vs discrete time modelling, etc are prereq.

At the end of the day, we're all working to better society whether it be by increasing economic efficiency or creating insights a la game theory or proving theorems or running experiments at CERN. Why are we promoting such childish hostility?

Is it really appropriate to say that *no one* intelligent has majored in economics? Maybe phy/math/eng are more attractive to people of higher intelligence on average and require higher intelligence in general to succeed, but don't shit on mathematical economics and people like Von Neumann, Hayek, Nash, Alan Greenspan, and so on.

I feel as if you are unfamiliar with economics. Please, honestly, I mean this in the least condescending may possible - read about it on Wikipedia in a broad sense. Realize that it is much different from "business" and "commerce" majors.

As for undergraduate curriculum - yes. I will straight up admit its not as hard as pure sci or eng - but it becomes very hard in graduate school. I'll even admit that eng and sci students are likely on average smarter - but a MA or PhD in economics is nothing to scoff at.

Just wondering - what level of education have you achieved? What are you studying. I'm not here to judge or make personal judgements rather than to simply clarify as to what the dismal science is and perhaps offer some insight into its "nature" or aspects of it that reinforce the idea of some rigour present in it and the overall complexity of the subject.

"The smartest people always major in mathematics"

A more accurate statement is

"The smartest people will tend to major in areas such as mathematics, physics, and engineering"

There is a world of difference between the two statements.

You even said "almost exclusively".
The almost is the key here.

Do you think genius doesn't exist in philosophy, law, business (and I'm not talking about economics - which is a social science - I'm talking about business)?

What about Marx, Smith, Ricardo? These people were not mathematicians, physicists, engineers, or physicians.

In this day and age, you need to math to succeed in econ. Maybe not in marketing.

You're pinning something as broad as intelligence into a very narrow category, and raising the standard for it to a PhD in very intellectually demanding fields. Note - econ also fills this - but intelligence is more diverse than whatever you're making it out to be.

You seem to be completely disconnected from reality, friend. Perhaps not posting completely anonymously and with such severely crass attitude would serve you well. You have my pity.

I assume you have a PhD in psychology and statistics then? Specialize in the field, have extensively studied in, and published in it?

Do you know what the problem of induction is?
You are aware that you can't establish an Archimedean viewpoint and judge intelligence in that manner - correct? As in, from your subjective viewpoint. Did you sit with your entire cohort and give extensive psychometric evaluations to them?
Have you studied Kant at all? Any philosophy? Any subject outside of your autistic fingerpainting known as "pure mathematics" - of which you are probably an undergraduate and will never amount to anything in?

You people need to get back in touch with reality and get a fucking clue. This entire board is an echo-chamber of severely distorted ideas and judgments that do not refer to reality at all. The entire population is like a man in a insane asylum purporting to know the truth about the world while viewing it from a 4x4" slot in his cell.

>being this mad

>5461▶

Scientists, of all people, should be indignant in the presence of ignorance.

You guys get butthurtz when anti-vaxxers show up. I can get butthurtz when some moron whose clearly never taken a single course in anything outside of autistic fingerpainting stipulates that his "expertise" is transitive and he possesses the authority to speak on topics he knows nothing about.

I'm off now.

>When was the last time you heard some intelligent kid go major in economics, business or finance?

Personality is more important for those people. They rarely even use anything they learned in college. Many of my old classmates from my business classes are now in highly social fields such as tax, stock brokers, and realtors.

Bump. Let's revive this discussion.

martin shkreli studied finance

Baker. You?

In the 80s and 90s being a quant meant having a PhD in maths, physics, compsci or similar

Nowadays the term has softened and basically any analyst who works in a research position will be informally considered a quant.

And yes plenty of people with econ undergrads will work as quants (generally not without a master's though)

This guy is bullshitting disastrously and has probably never come close even to getting an internship.

In the uk there are tonnes of people from imperial, UCL, lse and Warwick working as quants (in the informal sense ["true quants" back when quant meant you had a PhD are in their 40s by now]).

bimp

I might give you the first two, but engineering is not a major for 'smart' people. Ask them to think through an intricate problem and you'll catch them drooling crawling back to their textbooks so they can work away at rudimentary mathematics... That sounded ignorant right? Because surely not all engineering student are the same. The same goes for econ. A BA in engineering may get you money, but it dosen't make you smart. Also many great minds like thomas sowell and friedman were economist. Yes the field has "brainlets" who are subjectively "unintelligent" by you're standers, but it dosen't mean that this field is useless or for" brainlets". People who major in econ can go to law school, get an masters or PHD, leading to some undeniably impressive academia. So just because the are some who are unintelligent in a field dosen't saturate the field, nor dose it take away from the field's importance.

You are replying to a Veeky Forums memer who thinks that everything in life is determined by your major and it only.

Dude I've seen that phrase plenty of times in my old precalc textbook, though our math courses are a bit more rigorous than most

This is obviously bait, but I'll try to answer anyway, maybe someone really thinks like that.

> They don't do advanced math
Sometimes I also criticize this fact. For some theories of economics you've to use advanced math, but often it's only a small niche of economist that know that level of maths. I would prefer if there were less law courses and more math.
As I've written however, the top economist know advanced math.

> Nobody smart goes to econ
Yeah, that's bullshit. When you use words like “all, no one or only” generally you say something incorrect.
> But nobody smart that I know from high-school studied economics
And obviously your small experience is a statistically relevant information that allows you to affirm that “Those who are smart don't study economics”. Mind you, a lot of people in my university are brainlet that can't tell the difference between a hyperbole and a straight line, but they drop out because they can't pass the exams or they pass with marks so low that they can work only with daddy's recommendation or with a low wage.
Among my professors there are people who invented a type of tax or control the activity of the traders of the whole country. Others are renown as some of the top economist of the world.

Cont.

As a proof of someone smart who went to econ, here I am. An ukrainian who went in Europe for escaping poverty and wanted to understand economics since communism failed hard. I was one of the top student of my high-school and solved a problem with a circuit that even my professor who majored in physics couldn't do.
I'm now studying economics and I'm one of the top student of my university. Even some professors come to ask me what I plan to do after I graduate. My teacher of statistics also came to me asking me why I didn't choose a more scientific subject.
And if I'm a brainlet compared to my classmates who went to engineer?
Dunno, while they were playing D&D or Bloodborne in summer I was studying math from their textbook and learning computer languages after acing my exams. You judge it.

How is the second year of your math minor going? Not interfering too much with your Software Engineering degree, I hope?

The valedictorian of my HS class majored in economics

Econ PhD here.
I did topology during my research master (5 years ago or so). It's a fascinating topic, like most other maths. Won't pretend that I'm an expert in maths, but I did spend a huge chunk of my undergrad on statistics/calculus, and several semesters on real analysis/topology/set theory/etc during my master's.

Don't confuse business studies for Econ. All undergraduates (including econ) are honestly an awful indicator of what the field of study is actually like. It's sadly true that, for instance, Finance majors don't learn as much about the topic as Econ majors do.

There are brainlets in every field, but that doesn't invalidate the whole field. There's plenty of ideas out there that can be applied inter-disciplinary. I've taken inspiration from CompSci, but also solved problems for neuro-scientists.

What does it like feel wasting your time, effort and intelligence on a brainlet
field?

What is your bachelors in and your masters?

I presume there were other mathematics/physics students in your masters programme. How much easier was it for them in terms of the math side relative to you?

I'm debating to switch to mathematics with econ from bsc econ.

Your advice?

Not OP, but.

What does feel like wasting your time and effort being brave on an anonymous image board?

It must take away alot of your time from the two things you only do: shitpost and getting home schooling

Anyone here read "Weapons of Math Destruction"? Also thank you based OP for the picture

I did both my BSc and Research Master in Economics (specialising in Macroeconomics). To be fair, my university is somewhat known for being a lot more technical and tough than most other unis.
The RMaster had an engineering student in it, who struggled incredibly hard with all the topics; he was good at maths, but was also simply used to using other tools (e.g., I don't think I've ever encountered Laplace transforms, while he had never done linear algebra quite as extensively). I've met a handful of physicists who switched over to Econ, and they were usually able to manage just fine.

If you go into pure maths first and then switch to Econ, you'll probably be automatically pushed towards Game Theory, because that's perfectly connected to what you'd do in a maths undergrad. The maths undergrad would give you enough training in logic that you'd be able to figure out most topics in microeconomics/macroeconomics without having taken undergrad courses in them, but it would probably be rather awkward, so you'd miss out on a lot of perspective.

Switching from maths to Econ is definitely possible (and easier than the other way around), but unless you already take some extra classes on econometrics/micro/macro, there'll be a fair amount of catching up to do. The nice thing about Econ is that even if the maths is tough, there's always a somewhat clear way to get an intuitive understanding so you still get the big picture (which doesn't work as well for other fields imo).

tl;dr Maths with Econ on the side is great, but make sure to look into econometrics/micro/macro enough on the side before switching.

I would slow the fuck down and come back to Earth first. Starting a quant HF takes loads of experience outside of quantitative finance, and it also calls for a large supply of seed capital.

I thought econometric were just math for econ

"the branch of economics concerned with the use of mathematical methods (especially statistics) in describing economic systems".

Think Bayesian stats, stoachstic procceses, Markov chains, etc

So yes - but more stats and some comp-sci involved.

Note: Most unis offer something like "math methods I/II/ or "math for econ". It is NOT the same course.

aaaaarhhh I finally get it, I have wondered for a long time.

but why do you state that math undergrads should have taken econometrics, when it's just math and some comp. sci?

well I'm going to take math method 1, 2 and 3 (math econ).

DUDE QUANTITIES LMAO