<p>uhyea> Well not necessarily. Nowadays there is a great shift towards quantitative trading and so you get a lot of very analytical people at trading positions (people with engineering and science degrees). The people with B.S. who are going up the ranks is probably because they are some ridiculously intelligent people.</p>
<p>There also is no requirement that you have to be an ibanker before being a trader. These two jobs are unrelated to each other.</p>
<p>As for Tepper> Here is their career survey. <a href="http://business.tepper.cmu.edu/files/2004_2005businessadministrationcareerstats.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://business.tepper.cmu.edu/files/2004_2005businessadministrationcareerstats.pdf</a></p>
<p>If you want a good quantitative education you are better off at Chicago than at NYU or Umich.</p>
<p>so Chicago>NYU/CMU>UMich?</p>
<p>mahras, there was only one person who made it into trading. :eek:</p>
<p>I would say Chicago>NYU>CMU/Umich. I like Umich's mathematics program: <a href="http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/undergrad/concentration.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/undergrad/concentration.shtml</a></p>
<p>But all 4 are good schools.</p>
<p>funnyman> No there were multiple (I believe 3). You also had a bunch of them going into ibanking who could have been in trading as well (they really don't specify what dept. they go into). I would, however, assume that most people would go into IBD instead of trading.</p>
<p>okay..... how secure is a job in ibanking anyway? Don't most get fired after two years?</p>
<p>What do they do then?</p>
<p>For banking after your analyst stint you go back to business school and then enter as an associate.</p>
<p>okay, thanks.</p>
<p>Let's go back to the original question...</p>
<p>Which major makes the most $$$$?
If you were to find the median income of all engineer majors and the median income of all other majors that come directly out of their undergrad degrees, you will find that engineering makes the most $$$.</p>
<p>Like mahras said...
[quote]
Nowadays there is a great shift towards quantitative trading and so you get a lot of very analytical people at trading positions (people with engineering and science degrees).
[/quote]
An engineering major can do everything a finance/business major can do. But the reverse does NOT hold true.</p>
<p>you don't necessarily have to be an engineering major. Just something QUANT heavy. Jim Simmons from Renaissance Technologies was a math major for instance. A lot of other top traders have quant heavy degrees that aren't necessarily engineering. Things like physics, math, other sciences, etc.</p>
<p>Mahras I know, thats why i said finance and/or quant degree because that is very important. and i also did say that you dont have to go into banking to b a trader, they are different. But still there is no need for all those degrees, once you know the core of trading and how to do it well it is still a very tricky game depending highly on luck and intuition, along with the strong quant and/or financial know how, the markets are not an exact science after all</p>
<p>Luck on the short run may be a factor. However, on the long run it doesn't matter if you have an actual edge. </p>
<p>View it this way: I have a coin which lands on heads 55% of the time. If it lands on heads I give you a dollar if not I take a dollar. Although in the short run there is a probability that you will have a series of say 5 flips where it lands on tails but the expectancy of this exercise is +$.05. Thus, over the long run you will win. This is basically what trading comes down to: finding an edge which gives you a positive expectancy.</p>
<p>well isnt that the essence of the fields difficulty... finding the edge. Many don't have the edge even if they do posess several quant degrees while some with just a b.s. do and vice versa of course...What would you consider to be this elusive edge?</p>
<p>Attaining this edge has little to do with your degrees than to do your problem solving ability. Some people are just simply good problem solvers (for example people who make it to MOSP). People like them do not require advanced degrees to hone their problem solving ability. However, there is a pretty good correlation between say attaining a PhD in physics from MIT and problem solving ability.</p>
<p>Let's be honest, if anyone is bright and ambitious enough to have several quant degrees that personality alone is an edge by itself. The influx of knowledge that many of the top traders read , absorb, and see how it relates to their choices takes a lot of patience and effort. That's probably one of the most important edges. However, the fact that many also have this edge dulls the blade of my statement.</p>
<p>uhyeh, I'm not sure if you've ever read 'Blink - Power of Thinking without Thinking' but certain individuals are just GOOD at something. In it, it described a great trader who based his decisions often upon certain back pains, etc. What the author argued was that the subcons. of our mind absorbs everything and makes certain decisions often much faster than our actual consciousness. In this scenario, it was the subcons. that was giving him the back pains and he was using it to trade. How this actually affects much of real-life traders is unkwown. However, I'm sure you understand what I mean by traders trading on instinct or impulse. That perhaps is their vision of the previous trader's backpain, which in your scenario is also the "edge" you are curious about.</p>
<p>By edge I mean finding non-random behavior in the market which can be exploited. I do not mean an edge as in "get a PhD and you will be a trading god". Some of the best traders out there do not have PhDs (however, they have great problem solving ability).</p>
<p>exactly my point...having a phd and whatever does not garauntee a good trader..depends much on intuition, instinct and to some extent luck..exactly wat my orginal statement said</p>
<p>Again why would luck matter if you found an edge (as all successful traders have).</p>
<p>i said to some extent luck...meaning it could range from no luck to much luck...and finding that edge is not easy, so luck may add or may not add to that... how would some one know whether the successful traders got it through a specific manner in which they found to predict market fluctuations or did they just get "lucky" and stumble in to it. If it were a specific method that became a good prediction tool then most traders would catch on to that, and it would not be an edge anymore. So then what could it be that differentiates the good from the bad; intuition and possibly a little luck</p>