The "Chad" stereotype? (land, office, ranked)

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by brodie734

I'm guessing this is true, I'm also just going to come right out and say that Big Ten schools have become far more selective over the past 30 years, both in terms of grades and in terms of money. It's really no longer the case that schools like Michigan or Illinois or Wisconsin are easily accessible for the best and brightest students in those states regardless of income, these institutions chase big money out of state students which drives up test scores, etc. You can't get into Michigan, my alma mater, without a 32 on the ACT, 45% of the students are from out of state. It isn't a place most suburban Detroit students feel they can aspire to, which in turn changes the culture of the place further

This has almost certainly led to serious cultural changes... the type of kid who went to a B1G school from a blue collar household and emerged as a kind of middle class person with working class tastes probably don't exist in as great of numbers, meaning that the tastes of recent grads of those particular schools are generally more "cultured" than they were in the 1980s.

Precisely. Not to mention the hordes of kids from China and India who are literally acing the standardized tests at such rates that they are making the universities question their entire admissions policies.

[thefallensrvnge]

[quote=jonnynonos;50124947]

Originally Posted by thefallensrvnge

The fact that you think you could skate through a career in financial services tells me all I need to know.

Anyway, the responses here confirm my initial observation about those who indulge in the "Chads" and "Trixies" stereotype:

Ironic moustaches with fixie: smart and worldly

Polo shirt with shorts: dumb, unthinking robot

Whatever helps you sleep at night. We all have defense mechanisms to deal with threats, jealousy etc.

It certainly hasn't been my experience.

Caution:

If you have a bloated sense of importance of the financial sector and/or are offended by the stereotypes in this thread, you may be a Chad.

[jonnynonos]

[quote=thefallensrvnge;50127621]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

Caution:

If you have a bloated sense of importance of the financial sector and/or are offended by the stereotypes in this thread, you may be a Chad.

No, it's just to really get anywhere the more ambitious people, for instance, need a top tier-MBA, often if not usually paired with a CFA.

Doing either by itself is extremely difficult. Doing both while working a high-pressured job is far beyond the capacity of most people.

As for me... who cares....

[MassVt]

[quote=thefallensrvnge;50127621]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

Caution:

If you have a bloated sense of importance of the financial sector and/or are offended by the stereotypes in this thread, you may be a Chad.

More than a little truth here....

You could indulge in the stereotype that frat houses are just incubators for future "financial advisor, salesman, stockbroker, etc", but ultimately, there just might be some truth to the stereotype. A number of these guys just wanted the path of least resistance--no pesky quantum mechanics to learn, no science experiments, no difficult pre-med classes like organic chemistry, no complicated tort cases to wrangle about. They just wanted simple prose, with simple math, to go with simple tastes. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this, but there isn't much to admire, either....

[jonnynonos]

[quote=MassVt;50130725]

Originally Posted by thefallensrvnge

More than a little truth here....

You could indulge in the stereotype that frat houses are just incubators for future "financial advisor, salesman, stockbroker, etc", but ultimately, there just might be some truth to the stereotype. A number of these guys just wanted the path of least resistance--no pesky quantum mechanics to learn, no science experiments, no difficult pre-med classes like organic chemistry, no complicated tort cases to wrangle about. They just wanted simple prose, with simple math, to go with simple tastes. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this, but there isn't much to admire, either....

Oh no we're getting REALLY pretentious!! LOL!!

Actually there are a lot of people with hard core scientific backgrounds in finance, particularly the quants.

Sure, if you're actually a quantum physicist -- which I am going to go out on a limb and guess you're not -- go ahead and turn your nose up at them and everybody else.

Yes, unless you're a quantum physicist or an Ivy doctor, you have accomplished nothing... and your life is meaningless!

[Larry Siegel]

As a finance professional with a list of expensive and difficult-to-get credentials, I have to agree with thefallensrvnge. Outside of Goldman Sachs and a few other top banks, the top investment management firms, and the top plan sponsors, most people in finance are just pretty good. They are not quants, they have MBAs from second and third tier schools, and they just barely passed the CFA or else dropped out. Maybe 5-10% of the finance population would have made it in the sciences. The rest are good citizens, diligent, well schooled, but with relatively little imagination and creativity.

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by Larry Siegel

As a finance professional with a list of expensive and difficult-to-get credentials, I have to agree with thefallensrvnge. Outside of Goldman Sachs and a few other top banks, the top investment management firms, and the top plan sponsors, most people in finance are just pretty good. They are not quants, they have MBAs from second and third tier schools, and they just barely passed the CFA or else dropped out. Maybe 5-10% of the finance population would have made it in the sciences. The rest are good citizens, diligent, well schooled, but with relatively little imagination and creativity.

That was actually my quote, and fallensrvnge said something else, but whatever....

I'll have to agree with you (Larry Siegel, so we can get our quotes straight). Most MBA types are fine, but hardly brilliant or earth-shaking in any way. They really don't have any real imagination, creativity, or think deeply about virtually anything. Status-seeking, without questioning the status quo, excessive drinking, obsessed with the latest car, etc. Nothing bad, but nothing exceptional, either.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by Larry Siegel

As a finance professional with a list of expensive and difficult-to-get credentials, I have to agree with thefallensrvnge. Outside of Goldman Sachs and a few other top banks, the top investment management firms, and the top plan sponsors, most people in finance are just pretty good. They are not quants, they have MBAs from second and third tier schools, and they just barely passed the CFA or else dropped out. Maybe 5-10% of the finance population would have made it in the sciences. The rest are good citizens, diligent, well schooled, but with relatively little imagination and creativity.

The point want to compare financial services to rocket scientists.

The point was that even if you are a Joe Schmo embarking in this career and you want to advance, you are likely very busy as a young person trying to get ahead.

I'm not sure what "making it in the sciences" even means.

You mean you don't think someone who passes the CFA would be able to, say, get a biology doctorate? Or geology?

I think that is, frankly, flat wrong in many if not most instances.

Anyway, maybe my experience/circles are, again, not everyone's. I knew a LOT of people who were easily positioned to go to medical school etc. and I would say the majority of the people I knew were from top schools with very impressive credentials.

You don't just walk into a financial firm and apply for a job and get it with middling grades and a bachelor degree from a mediocre university.

If so, I would like to know where.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by MassVt

That was actually my quote, and fallensrvnge said something else, but whatever....

I'll have to agree with you (Larry Siegel, so we can get our quotes straight). Most MBA types are fine, but hardly brilliant or earth-shaking in any way. They really don't have any real imagination, creativity, or think deeply about virtually anything. Status-seeking, without questioning the status quo, excessive drinking, obsessed with the latest car, etc. Nothing bad, but nothing exceptional, either.

As opposed to whom?

[Larry Siegel]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

The point want to compare financial services to rocket scientists.

The point was that even if you are a Joe Schmo embarking in this career and you want to advance, you are likely very busy as a young person trying to get ahead.

I'm not sure what "making it in the sciences" even means.

You mean you don't think someone who passes the CFA would be able to, say, get a biology doctorate? Or geology?

I think that is, frankly, flat wrong in many if not most instances.

Anyway, maybe my experience/circles are, again, not everyone's. I knew a LOT of people who were easily positioned to go to medical school etc. and I would say the majority of the people I knew were from top schools with very impressive credentials.

You don't just walk into a financial firm and apply for a job and get it with middling grades and a bachelor degree from a mediocre university.

If so, I would like to know where.

The top end of finance is filled with Nobel Prize winners, actual rocket scientists who wanted to make money, and other geniuses. But the broad middle of the financial field - commercial bankers, middle and back office personnel at investment management firms, financial planners and advisors (who used to be called stockbrokers), etc. - are pretty good.

Making it in the sciences means getting a PhD in one of the hard sciences and then getting a job in that field. Much as I respect the knowledge that went into the CFA curriculum, I wouldn't bet on a CFA Level III candidate against a PhD candidate in one of the sciences at even a middle-ranked school (say, Arizona State) for pure cognitive ability.