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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Degrees are subjective and I feel like I have enough degrees and that someone with a different degree is not superior to me, in intelligence or job ability. Implying I don't have pedigree and they do can easily be interpreted as insulting my educational attainment, at the very least.
Problem sets aren't really useful or relevant to the job, personally I wouldn't hire based on that and that's why I'm also not a fan of math competition. I was thinking of trying to get published in statistics journals, though.
A fair evaluation of my signals, which should be enough for an interview, and a fair, unbiased, interview process, which I believe would reveal I'm at least at the median of their new hires.
That's not whining. Stop saying I'm whining. It's rude.
Efficient doesn't mean "should," it describes a set of properties a market can have. Economists often presume markets have these properties, and that there are good outcomes when they do, but I never even said it "should" be efficient. I just said if it's efficient, then I would get a job. I don't know how efficient it is.
Again, stop insulting my educational attainment, my preferred intellectuals hobbies, and/or my race.
I never said "should," I just said I know I'm at least as equipped for the job as some new hires I've chatted with, but they expressed concern about bias in the hiring market for a specific type of résumé, which gives me inefficiency concerns, therefore leading me to question if I should bother trying to enter even though I'm confident I can do the job.
I've now updated by odds of this being a troll post to >50%. Well done if you got me. If not, best of luck.
Why is it trolling, where am I disingenuous at? Does this not seem like a genuine reaction to being told that I'm not allowed to work a job I think I'd be good at because I don't have the right certificate from Princeton? That none of my education counted towards that, even though I know my stuff?
I think maybe you never heard rebellious thoughts towards the HYPSM hierarchy before and that's why it comes off as trolling. But that's a legacy fact from when they were nice places, they had fair admissions, and there was no internet so they did gatekeep knowledge. I'm just on the younger side, and you'll be hearing this kind of thing increasingly frequently from my generation. Many of us are done with considering those schools pedigree. Their admissions aren't fair, their students are no longer brilliant, we're not impressed by strivers, and they're not affordable to the middle and upper middle class. We won't hire on them, we won't target them, and we will continue voting for Trump style disruption to them, because a ton of us got screwed by their DEI admissions when we were teenagers and we're not going to let foreigners take our nice jobs that we're intelligent enough to do because we were priced out or raced out of "pedigree" schools in the 2010s and 2020s.
Hiring from prestigious universities is kind of like buying from IBM decades ago. It's known not to be the best value but managers also know that they won't get blamed if the Princeton kid doesn't work out but will if he hires the Murray State kid and they don't work out.
Quant firms are high enough on the desirability totem pole, they mostly don't have to risk hiring outside the prestige schools, so if you want to get in the other way you have to be more impressive than their median candidate to be worth taking the risk on.
It's not a risk, they're just incompetent at their hiring role and are committing illegal hiring discrimination at that point.
Sir, this is a
Wendy'sculture war forum. You are not talking to people who are rejecting you from quant jobs, though if I were the hiring manager for one, I would reject you just on the basis of these posts. Not being so thin-skinned that you would fly off the handle over a tortured misinterpretation of a word is also a job requirement.You're clearly not very good at hiring then. Maybe realistic from what I'm hearing although I think a lot of it here is jealousy and not genuine advice. I'll probably still get a good quant job because their hiring managers can't be that racist against white people and biased towards overrated brand name schools.
I really doubt anyone here is jealous of some state-school college graduate with a high GPA
you haven't actually done anything impressive yet
What really matters is genetics. The impressiveness of any action is socially constructed except for violence (historically, basically impossible to succeed at in modernity), reproduction, and to some extent wealth acquisition (the money is real, the impressiveness of the actions taken to get it is socially constructed. But the money matters and it makes people jealous). Genetics controls potential to succeed at these.
Your behavior is an example. Any achievement I have that you don't is trivial, unimportant, a waste of time, or not impressive. Any achievement you or your group has, is admired. If I had a humans factory I could easily manufacture a larger group that thinks everything you admire is not impressive, and admires things which you find unadmirable. At the end of the day though, what really matters is who polices whom, who has more money than whom, and who outbreeds whom.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link