So I'm thinking what to do when I'm done with my degree in Philosophy - I can either go on to higher levels of it, or I can do a degree in law or accounting & finance (at this uni - it's pretty libertarian/Austrian and it's high quality.) One thing that's worrying me about a degree that involves finance though is the mathematics. I've done first year university courses in economics, including quantitative methods, which was nothing too horrifying. What is the mathematics like in finance? Is it very difficult? Or could someone with reasonable ability in maths cope with it? Here's a breakdown of the course. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus:Or could someone with reasonable ability in maths cope with it?
I don't know first-hand, but I'm guessing you'll be able to handle it. If that's all you're worrying about, don't. It's going to be calculus and differential equations, along with a bunch of statistics. It's not like it's 4-dimensional plasma physics (which I happen to have a textbook on that I bought at an estate auction for a deceased university physics prof - Holy crap! is that stuff intense).
In my limited experience, there's nothing that's commonly taught at most universities that is not doable by a regular intelligent person with enough motivation and interest and who is willing to put in the work. And, if I understand the field correctly, the quant stuff you've already done is probably the hardest of the math. I could be wrong on that, but my impression is that the quants are considered the pointy-headed geeks of the industry.
If econ is what you're really interested in, learning what the mainstream is doing isn't a bad idea, even if you think/know that it's mostly bunk. First, there's money to be made with it regardless (or else, bunk or not, it wouldn't still be pursued so much), second, if your goal is to further Austrian economics, then understanding in detail the opposing view is valuable.
And if you're going into that field, read "The Black Swan" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. It's got nothing to do with Austrain econ, but just from that book alone, you'll never look at mainstream econ the same way again.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
Well the course has some economics on it, but my desire is to get a degree I can use to make money out of, either as an accountant or a financial advisor or something of that sort, without having to know copious amounts of mathematics (which an economist does.) If the maths is no more difficult than that in economics, it should be fine. Interestingly enough, I saw that book you mentioned in a bookstore today - I thought it was just another pop-economics book so I walked by it.
Jon Irenicus: Well the course has some economics on it, but my desire is to get a degree I can use to make money out of, either as an accountant or a financial advisor or something of that sort, without having to know copious amounts of mathematics (which an economist does.)
Well the course has some economics on it, but my desire is to get a degree I can use to make money out of, either as an accountant or a financial advisor or something of that sort, without having to know copious amounts of mathematics (which an economist does.)
Do you want the piece of paper, or the knowledge?
The knowledge - the paper on its own is worthless. But before I go on to do such a degree I first want to know what it involves, so I don't waste both time and money.
Fair answer. I thought about going back to edit it by adding BOTH.
I'm quite sure you can acquire the knowledge to be successful without the piece of paper. So in that regard, as long as you are able to add the piece of paper through minimum mastery of the curriculum, then your practical experience and creativity should be enough to overcome any short comings you had academically.
I say this because my formal education is limited, and yet in what education I did receive, I learned dramatically more in the working world, and by my own curiousity and desire to learn.
In that regard, the paper has value by providing opportunity for work experience that may not be available just to a curious layman.
I thought about acquiring the requisite knowledge through practical experience, but the thing is my quantitative background is rather limited, and it's nearly impossible to get hired by a major financial firm in the UK if you cannot demonstrate such knowledge. As for the accounting part, I need a degree for that whether I like it or not. I'm just wondering if I should do a straightforward degree in accountancy or one that incorporates finance as well, as that'd expand my employment opportunities... as well as maybe help me comprehend all the cryptic discussions on here pertaining to monetary economics.
Jon Irenicus:The knowledge - the paper on its own is worthless.
Well, then, you'll need the math. There's no getting around it. But I'm willing to bet that your fear of it is far worse than the actual math.
Go back to the bookstore and get Black Swan. It is a "pop" book, but a very good one. It completely tears apart the basic premises of risk management in the financial industry. It's very readable, no difficult math. He's not using to sell some quick fix product, he's laying the logical foundations for a completely new paradigm.
He was a quant, by the way. Made $30+ million in the '87 crash, which he calls his "F-You money", in that it allowed him to tell everyone else to "f-you" and go be a philosopher like he always wanted to be.
Jon,
I studied economics at Buckingham a few years ago. There was not a particularly heavy emphasis on maths. At the time I was pleased, but when I did postgraduate studies I wished that more mathematics had been taught.
I never heard anyone who did the Accounting and Finance degree complain about there being too much mathematics involved.
Well from what I'm told it's less difficult than what a degree in economics would involve, so maybe you're right. Anyway, I'll give that book a look when I have some time.
Colbyco, thanks for the information. I'll send you a PM.
You will be fine if you have a basic understanding of math! I work with three accountants on a daily basis (I am an analyst) and we do more math (well, our programs do) than the accountants
Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side
Is this really a good thing to do with the bursting of the finance bubble?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
histhasthai:Go back to the bookstore and get Black Swan. It is a "pop" book, but a very good one. It completely tears apart the basic premises of risk management in the financial industry. It's very readable, no difficult math. He's not using to sell some quick fix product, he's laying the logical foundations for a completely new paradigm.
We had ourselves a discussion about that the other day based on a NY Times article about the author.
His theory seem a little off to me from what I could gather from the article.
Anonymous Coward: based on a NY Times article about the author. His theory seem a little off to me from what I could gather from the article.
based on a NY Times article about the author.
Well, I never trust the NY Times for anything, and never trust any mainstream drive-by media to describe any complex concept correctly, and certainly not one that goes so much against "common wisdom". I read that article, and it was grossly oversimplified to the point of getting it wrong - not completely, but enough to leave the wrong impression. Besides, it was more about him than about the ideas.
I'm not saying the theory is perfect, but there's some observations in it that are self-apparently, slap your forehead true. He doesn't really have a complete "theory", in part for reasons similar to the Austrian "no math" idea. It's a theory about how certain things are inherently non-predictable, and about how the results of some kinds of them can completely overwhelm the statistical history with one data point, rendering most ways we know how to manage risk ineffective at best, and dangerously misleading at worst.
I'll read that other thread when I get a chance.
The skills acquired could be put to use in any number of professions. I'm not inclined to the natural sciences.