Is technical analysis getting the recognition it deserves in university studies?

[NihabaAshi]

Quote from marketsurfer:

very weak. I was hoping for an answer since the answer would answer the university question. apparently there isn't one.

surf

marketsurfer,

I gave you the incorrect link to answer your question.

The answer is in optioncoach reply at the below correct link.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=93470&perpage=5&pagenumber=2

It it doesn't answer your question...

Rephrase it and ask me again.

Mark

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from jasonk1:

Going back to this forum topic, I do think TA is getting a lot of criticisms from academics, for reasons stated by other ET memebers above.

I do think TA should get taught a bit more in uni, and a good academics should not be biased towards any discpline, they should only expose the students to the area of TA, then let the kids to decide where to go from there.

Then again, the current college system is more about showing the kids the path taken by majority of people, not about teaching them how to be entreprenial or taking risk.

So unless some renowned professor starts appraising TA worldwide (for using TA as one of the arsenals, not the only one arsenal), or a complete change of teaching mentality in college, otherwise its goin to take a long time for TA to get the recongition it deserves in most uni.

cheers

jason

TA should be taught in fiction class. Unproven myths and methodologies do not deserve to be ballyhooed when they remain in the world of leprechauns, pixies and unicorns.

 

[stock_trad3r]

Quote from marty_f:

While charters are level-headed as fundamental analysts in the real trading world, they are rarely mentioned in university studies. Even if they do, they are often criticised by most academics.

Obviously there is a good reason that fundamental analysis gets a bigger mention in university studies as it is also useful for a lot of non-trading related financial activities.

However, I hold a strong view that technical analysis is not getting the recognition it deserves in university studies. Should they not have done any trading themselves, a lot of students would have walked into an investment bank trading interview, answering ~{!0~}I have never learnt about technical analysis~{!1~}, or ~{!0~}I was taught that technical analysis is only for the unwise~{!1~}. And that would be a disaster if the interviewer is from a technical discipline.

Elitetraders, please feel free to express your view or to debate on this issue. I also wish to know how technical analysis is being taught in top schools around the world.

Academics, students, investment bank traders, independent traders are most welcomed.

Marty

Cause its not a real science. Technical analysis is pheudoscience at best. You can't have a college course on a subject that lacks academic rigor.

 

[El OchoCinco]

As long as you have an open mind.

I assume you feel fundamental analysis is the opposite of TA?

Quote from rcanfiel:

TA should be taught in fiction class. Unproven myths and methodologies do not deserve to be ballyhooed when they remain in the world of leprechauns, pixies and unicorns.

 

[fframe38]

Quote from stock_trad3r:

Cause its not a real science. Technical analysis is pheudoscience at best. You can't have a college course on a subject that lacks academic rigor.

I disagree that you can't have a college course on a subject that lacks academic rigor. The Psychology 101 class I took in college was an exercise in studying strongly held emotional beliefs of some "leaders in the field" including sexually deviant individuals and drug addicts. Most of the conclusions were biased, and could not be proven scientifically. Many of the theories were contradictory. The information taught in the class was largely useless. In fact, the class had no value except as an easy way to get a good grade and meet some hot women.

I learned more useful information about human psychology from 3 weeks of real-time trading than I ever learned in the Psychology classes.

 

[El OchoCinco]

That hits a new low lol....

Academic rigor....

Pshycology, Economics, Religion...man in your school they would only teach math where Professors can prove 100% that 2 + 2 = 4.

When you stop believing trading is a science you might start making money.

Quote from stock_trad3r:

Cause its not a real science. Technical analysis is pheudoscience at best. You can't have a college course on a subject that lacks academic rigor.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from fframe38:

I disagree that you can't have a college course on a subject that lacks academic rigor. The Psychology 101 class I took in college was an exercise in studying strongly held emotional beliefs of some "leaders in the field" including sexually deviant individuals and drug addicts. Most of the conclusions were biased, and could not be proven scientifically. Many of the theories were contradictory. The information taught in the class was largely useless. In fact, the class had no value except as an easy way to get a good grade and meet some hot women.

I learned more useful information about human psychology from 3 weeks of real-time trading than I ever learned in the Psychology classes.

This is a very good post, but it deals more with what the state of university education is, rather than what is provable.

I think I have been addressing the original thread title question wrong the entire time, until I just read this post.

I have no problem with TA being taught at university or anywhere else. I'll even go so far as to say it should be an elective, at least, for those who wish to decide upon the merits and usefulness of TA for themselves.

Whether TA is provable as a means of making accurate future predictions of movement is the question I was addressing.

I have an open mind.

 

[NihabaAshi]

Quote from rcanfiel:

TA should be taught in fiction class. Unproven myths and methodologies do not deserve to be ballyhooed when they remain in the world of leprechauns, pixies and unicorns.

Hi rcanfiel,

Can you explain what value technical analysis has when you recently said the following in another thread here at ET about TA...

Probable that only things like support/resistance & trendlines have value.

In my opinion, TA has value as an accredited class to fulfill whatever curriculuum requirements is needed to get a degree.

Does it belong in the School of Science, School of Business (my best bet), School of Arts or whatever???

However, to say it has as much value as a fiction class as in the world of leprechauns is far fetched.

Thus, my vote is to place TA in the School of Business as it currently is designated at some universities.

Mark

 

[El OchoCinco]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:



Whether TA is provable as a means of making accurate future predictions of movement is the question I was addressing.

I have an open mind.

I think what you will find is that traders do not care about generalized proofs. They only care if something can help them make better decisions to go long or short.

TA does not predict just like fundamental analysis does not predict, the individual investor or trader does. So a study does not really make sense in my opinion. How could you do a study that is realistic and matches an individual's trading style.

It is a bad argument to support teaching financial statement analysis with respect to stock valuation which is taught at every school in every business program and claim that TA has no place to even be taught (let the students make their own decision and research if something has merit).

 

[ProfLogic]

There is old TA based on imperfect indicators and noisy charts and new TA grounded in better indicators and quiet charts.

There is inconsistent TA and consistent TA . . . and there is no comparison between the two. Its like comparing the efficiency of the hubble telescope to a child's spyglass. I repeat . . . there is no comparison even though individuals will try.

Those that are open to the possibility of a difference between the two, or even that a CONSISTENT TA can exist, can see the potential of melding fundamental Analysis to Technical Analysis. FA being the foundation of the decision making process and TA being the trigger for entering and exiting the trades.

The problem in the past is that the TA has always been tainted by noise and irregularities basically rendering it useless or inconsistent at best. Everyone agrees with this statement . . . to a point. The full spectrum of responses run from those that only TA and use it successfully to those that find it utterly worthless. So the argument will never end.

"The only people finding that which others say doesn't exit will be those that look for it."