Math vs. ORFE

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
21

<p>Thank you JHS for telling me about that. I was worried because I read that there’s this great battle for power in firms between IBanking Division vs. Sales & Trading and that the traders often lose out –> the traders don’t get their fair share of the pie. But, I guess that’s probably just one person b***hing out because s/he lost the battle. :)</p>

<p>John, so, traders don’t want to be promoted to managerial positions since they actually have better compensation as a trader? I sense sarcasm, but I’m not 100% sure over the web… :P</p>

22

<p>tophopeful if you are making $20 million per year as a top trader, the last thing in your mind is going to be the next title that the firm is going to give you (VP, SrVP, MD, who cares?)</p>

23

<p>John Adams is right. I assume that if you want to work in Finance, you’re in it for the money and financial reward - not the power that comes with being a VP, MD, etc. If the latter’s what you’re interested in I recommend you packing your bags and relocating from Wall St, New York to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C. You’d probably be a lot happier in politics (that is if anyone is happy in politics). </p>

<p>That being said anyone who does well in Sales and Trading will receive compensation at a pace that far out paces the grunt life of those in the IB Division where performance is ranked on how much coffee you can drain to stay awake. And if you manage to land one of the god proprietary positions at Jane St. or GETCO - then you’ll receive an actual PERCENTAGE of the profits you make. And that kind of money is ridiculous.</p>

24

<p>Indian, here is another way to look at it: if you, as a trader, are making $20 million a year for yourself then it implies that you are making at least $100 million for the firm. If that is the case then you can call yourself by whatever title you want and there wouldn’t be any complaints.</p>

<p>ha!</p>

25

<p>

</p>

<p>Johnadams, don’t look now, but ITA with you on this.</p>

26

<p>aha!</p>

<p>my main debating partner on CC and I are eye to eye on yet another topic. What is this world coming to?</p>

<p>I assume the nephew is getting really excited to grace the steps of Old Nassau this coming fall?</p>

27

<p>Aha, I get it now…</p>

<p>So, do John and Pizzagirl know each other in real life or something?</p>

28

<p>tophopeful, no…</p>

<p>we have been the biggest enemies on CC,and only on CC, for a while until recently, when we have agreed on a few things</p>

29

<p>ok sorry i realize i’m bumping up this thread (and also continuing to stray off-topic). thanks for your reply, weasel! but to clarify (you’re right, what i wrote before was really vague): if i major in econ, i’ll definitely follow the more-math track. my question is, is there any benefit to taking the “harder” multivariable and linear algebra courses (by my understanding, 203+204 and even 201+202 are harder than MAT 200) within the more-math track?</p>

<p>for example, will choosing 203+204 or 201+202 give one econ major a leg up on another econ major who just took 200 when it comes to internships, both in finance or at other corporations (i really like film)? or am i just overthinking this? >.<</p>

30

<p>Simply having the harder courses will not give you a leg up. But if you’re in a really technical interview (and I mean really technical) then I guess it’s conceivable that they might ask you something that’s covered in 203/204 but not in 200. But I wouldn’t decide what courses to take based on this.</p>