site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   2565 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 8, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Get used to being triggered. Quantitative Finance is famously ruthless and will chew out anyone with an ego.

If you think this sub talks about humans in a dismissive manner, wait till you meet someone in Quant. Quant alongside top AI-startups are the 2 most sought after jobs in the tech industry. They get 100k+ applications. They use ruthless high-pass filters before they begin to read resumes. Pedigree, prestige, track record....call it what you want, they serve the purpose of bringing a 100k applications down to a digestible hundred that are worth looking at.

I'm a Legacy American

So a white Christian whose religion tells him that lending money and working with derivatives is a sin ? (/s)

So you're saying you're superior to me by blood, essentially

You're putting words in the GP's mouth.

So in an efficient market, there would be a job for me.

The market converges to an efficient state given enough time. That time become near infinite if there is low discoverability, which is true for non-conventional candidates. Hell, Quant relies on the assumption that the market is always temporarily inefficient. And exploiting those inefficiencies is how you make money.

There are 2 ways to get noticed by Quant.

  1. Conventional - Ladder climb - Ruthlessly compete in a crowded field of elite candidates and consistently come out on top. This is the prestige path. Get into an ivy and out-compete fellow smart kids in math. Win math & coding competitions. etc. If you are in front of the line, you become the boring and obvious choice.

  2. Unconventional - Be interesting, be visible - This is a 2 parter. First, do something that makes you interesting. eg: Run your own backyard trading strategy and make $$, win big on prediction markets, be a world leader in an obscure nerd only card-game, make an open-source tool that all the trading people are using, etc. Alongside that, you also need to be visible. Find a way to get your face in front of Quant people (recruiters, employees, etc). If you are interesting enough and visible enough, they will give you an interview. This is the back door. It combines some unconventional excellence with network.

The paths are well defined. if #1 isn't for you, then do #2. If not #2, then idk what's left.

try to go all-in on coding instead?

I am not sure coding is going to be around for much longer

You're putting words in the GP's mouth.

No, he insulted my pedigree by insinuating I don't have one. If you look up the definition of pedigree, it's an insult to blood. I'm sure he meant school but that's almost as bad, especially by repurposing that word.

They use ruthless high-pass filters before they begin to read resumes.

Ruthless or just incompetent? If test scores aren't a part of your "ruthless" filter, you're just doing DEI for striver kids at that point.

Pedigree, prestige, track record....call it what you want, they serve the purpose of bringing a 100k applications down to a digestible hundred that are worth looking at.

So they are just lazy and incompetent? Maybe I don't want to work with them then.

So a white Christian whose religion tells him that lending money and working with derivatives is a sin ?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%3A14-30&version=ESV

The paths are well defined. if #1 isn't for you, then do #2. If not #2, then idk what's left.

Is it really this bad? I can try to kind of do 2 but I'm not going to do anything I don't enjoy that isn't profitable. I kind of assumed a smaller form with some competent, legacy American hiring managers would be smart enough to interpret my résumé correctly.

  • -13

Whining about the hiring practices of highly profitable and successful firms in a cutthroat industry because they won't give you the time of day is a very bad look.

It's silly to think the correlation between hiring competence and profit is 1. Or even over .70.

You're both right to a degree IMO. Some of the metrics used in Quant recruiting are probably dumb but also they've got 100k resumes from top percentile applicants and can't blame them for leaning on the previously applied great sort.

I doubt they get that many apps from the top percentile. Top percentile is probably top 25% or more at a quant firm.

There are a lot of people in the world and quant is super desirable. Napkin maths but even the USA alone has 3M top percentile and quant is inherently very international.

Most people serious overrate the psychometric ability of hiring managers. I've talked to quants and many are not that smart. They're probably 97th percentile strivers. I put myself around true 140 IQ.

I put myself around true 140 IQ.

You are probably in good company with the rest of the "midwit quants". They think they of themselves much like you do.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats