Value of Education
- Thread starter kamdooo
- Start date
well. i pm'ed cmk a while ago. If he wants to release it, thats fine.
In truth, I have been wasting some time. Time of yours and mine, but probably more yours.
Prior to leaving these boards, I wanted to see what would happen to a few remarks.
The hunch is that most folks here are somewhat uneducated. Might have a grad degree....but its exactly that. "a" grad degree.
You say this (the thing that everyone knows) in any situation, people are a little upset. You say that education is important in a community where everyone is educated, folks tend to agree. Say education is important here and the general membership is put off.
To no one's surprise, comments like, "education is not important at all to trading--its more of a psych thing....cs might help, but its more psych....quants skills are useless....its a psych thing...and the all time coveted "money management",
these comments probably resonate with many members. Some members do not agree...but they are a small minority judging by the responses thus far. (there are a few outspoken defenders of common sense....or shall i say conventional wisdom with regards to the value of education)
Next thing you know we'll take another step down and start preaching about how "learning"....yeah...LEARNING how to breathe is all you need to trade...because without that you can't manage...
Sometimes the bare bones aren't enough. The same thing came over the hype on not needing an mba....when people like newsweek started questioning the usefullness of such a degree. And its all rooted in the idea that you can move along in the biz world without it, and that having one doesn't necessarily mean much in terms of employment. You could be doing just fine at a place like Boeing without an mba....or you could be a broker without an mba....but getting one even in a position like a broker would help you sell the sizzle, not the sausage. And people always forget it...it's easier to want to get by with less.
In truth, I have been wasting some time. Time of yours and mine, but probably more yours.
Prior to leaving these boards, I wanted to see what would happen to a few remarks.
The hunch is that most folks here are somewhat uneducated. Might have a grad degree....but its exactly that. "a" grad degree.
You say this (the thing that everyone knows) in any situation, people are a little upset. You say that education is important in a community where everyone is educated, folks tend to agree. Say education is important here and the general membership is put off.
To no one's surprise, comments like, "education is not important at all to trading--its more of a psych thing....cs might help, but its more psych....quants skills are useless....its a psych thing...and the all time coveted "money management",
these comments probably resonate with many members. Some members do not agree...but they are a small minority judging by the responses thus far. (there are a few outspoken defenders of common sense....or shall i say conventional wisdom with regards to the value of education)
Next thing you know we'll take another step down and start preaching about how "learning"....yeah...LEARNING how to breathe is all you need to trade...because without that you can't manage...
Sometimes the bare bones aren't enough. The same thing came over the hype on not needing an mba....when people like newsweek started questioning the usefullness of such a degree. And its all rooted in the idea that you can move along in the biz world without it, and that having one doesn't necessarily mean much in terms of employment. You could be doing just fine at a place like Boeing without an mba....or you could be a broker without an mba....but getting one even in a position like a broker would help you sell the sizzle, not the sausage. And people always forget it...it's easier to want to get by with less.
kamdooo,
OK. So, you were being sarcastic.
Anyhow, the thing about trading is it's so difficult to distinguish between skills and luck and the evolution of that cycle.
So, many people without well thought out methods can make money and think all you need is just "feeling" the right move.
While others on the hand do careful research and have a thought out plan for trading. And some of these methods require sophisticated level of education.
Now the great irony is this. Some of these "educated" methods make money and some of them don't. And some make money sometimes and at others don't.
So, it's extremely difficult to extricate which methods (ET vs quant vs fundamental analysis vs MBA vs portfolio managers,etc.) is right. They can be all right or all wrong at certain times.
So, the correlation between the methods and trading success is hard to discern and thus confuses the issue that's is the central debate here.
Now, if one want "respectable" employment, then education is one of the ways to go. It's the ticket to high paying, stable, low-risk , high reward jobs.
Obviously, here in America, entrepreneurs have been rewarded richly. Perhaps, it's survivorship-bias. For every Bill Gates, there are millions who tried and failed.
So, it's up to you. What path you think you want and CAPABLE of getting. Perhaps, school isn't for everyone. But my best bet is for people to go to college and get the best education possible and continue to learn in academic as well as street-smart sense of the word.
P.S. Now, others might quote Market Wizards and say some of these people didn't need high power education. But I don't think they are not talented or not smart. They are very smart and extremely "brilliant" in the market. But not necessarily book smart. But what do people think it will take to be "brilliant" in the market? Hard to say...
OK. So, you were being sarcastic.
Anyhow, the thing about trading is it's so difficult to distinguish between skills and luck and the evolution of that cycle.
So, many people without well thought out methods can make money and think all you need is just "feeling" the right move.
While others on the hand do careful research and have a thought out plan for trading. And some of these methods require sophisticated level of education.
Now the great irony is this. Some of these "educated" methods make money and some of them don't. And some make money sometimes and at others don't.
So, it's extremely difficult to extricate which methods (ET vs quant vs fundamental analysis vs MBA vs portfolio managers,etc.) is right. They can be all right or all wrong at certain times.
So, the correlation between the methods and trading success is hard to discern and thus confuses the issue that's is the central debate here.
Now, if one want "respectable" employment, then education is one of the ways to go. It's the ticket to high paying, stable, low-risk , high reward jobs.
Obviously, here in America, entrepreneurs have been rewarded richly. Perhaps, it's survivorship-bias. For every Bill Gates, there are millions who tried and failed.
So, it's up to you. What path you think you want and CAPABLE of getting. Perhaps, school isn't for everyone. But my best bet is for people to go to college and get the best education possible and continue to learn in academic as well as street-smart sense of the word.
P.S. Now, others might quote Market Wizards and say some of these people didn't need high power education. But I don't think they are not talented or not smart. They are very smart and extremely "brilliant" in the market. But not necessarily book smart. But what do people think it will take to be "brilliant" in the market? Hard to say...
I think that any kind of education beyond arithmetic and the alphabetical ability to distinguish one symbol from another is worthless. I get my best trading ideas when I am dead fucking drunk, nigh unto comatose. Those ideas invariably fall into the line of "There is no fucking way that what I just thought I saw happen happened!"
dude, that was what i was thinking.. that you just wanted to see the reaction by posting something that people here generally agree too.. that education is worthless.
anyway, i agree with your previous posts... education is extremely important. maybe you have read my posts before... basically they say the same things you do. i also cruise the wilmott baords too. both boards have their merits. to come up with a trade idea, you need the theory. but to execute it, you need to know the nuts and bolts. i come here for the basics... the practical side... after all if you have a great idea but do not know how to implmenet it then its will greatly affect the performance.
you know, its no use to argue with people who do not have an education. they see things from a different point of view. like uneducated taxi drivers. they have a view from the bottom of the street of the biulding. but at the top, you view that he is only 1 of thousands on the street. its different. they will have lots of trouble understanding your point of view because they are confined to the bottom.
in response to trader99:
aside from my bs, I tend to agree your advice at the end. thats my actual opinion.
i like everything about that comment except the use of the term "street smarts" with respect to "book smarts".
(interpersonal/people smarts are not a part of either, and are never mentioned.)
I'll say it like this. You count rocks for a living and do well. Its simply incorrect to assume that because you have the "street smarts" to hustle, your academic counterpart cannot do the same IF NEED BE.
Granted your average math prof can't hit the streets running, but i bet your ass he can do it IF NEED BE.
Can you work the fryer at Mcdonalds? Yeah, so that worker must have "food smarts". But I bet your ass you could figure it out.
Main point:
i've noticed this, particularly coming up through school. Now done, it rarely comes up in the form of academia, just other things like...oh...trading i suppose. This society promotes the culture of "everyone is good at something". If Johnny isn't good at math, (like practically everyone in the US), than Johnny is good at some other subject...like reading. Its left brain this, right brain that. This standard to which people are judged is based INWARD, as opposed to a universal higher one that applies to everyone.
"Mary has a weak net game, but she has strong baseline skills."
"Pat is a little slow, but he makes up for it in strength"
As it turns out, both mary and pat aren't going anywhere with their athletic careers because when judged by a universal higher standard, (like a professional athlete) they just don't cut it.
But we'll go on about how they have their strengths and weaknesses....when in reality they only have weakness from a higher standard.
....just because you are "bad" at math, doesn't make you "good" at english. Just because you are "bad" at achieving academic skills doesn't mean you are "good" at doing "street smart " activities.
But thats not how we think as a general whole because everyone is good at something. Even single limbed retards are born with a "kind heart"...I'm sure that the mild learning disorder on top of severe physical limitations resulting in social alienation would leave any challenged person feeling all warm and fuzzy/compassionate.
Some people are not good at ANYTHING, but we don't recognize this.
aside from my bs, I tend to agree your advice at the end. thats my actual opinion.
i like everything about that comment except the use of the term "street smarts" with respect to "book smarts".
(interpersonal/people smarts are not a part of either, and are never mentioned.)
I'll say it like this. You count rocks for a living and do well. Its simply incorrect to assume that because you have the "street smarts" to hustle, your academic counterpart cannot do the same IF NEED BE.
Granted your average math prof can't hit the streets running, but i bet your ass he can do it IF NEED BE.
Can you work the fryer at Mcdonalds? Yeah, so that worker must have "food smarts". But I bet your ass you could figure it out.
Main point:
i've noticed this, particularly coming up through school. Now done, it rarely comes up in the form of academia, just other things like...oh...trading i suppose. This society promotes the culture of "everyone is good at something". If Johnny isn't good at math, (like practically everyone in the US), than Johnny is good at some other subject...like reading. Its left brain this, right brain that. This standard to which people are judged is based INWARD, as opposed to a universal higher one that applies to everyone.
"Mary has a weak net game, but she has strong baseline skills."
"Pat is a little slow, but he makes up for it in strength"
As it turns out, both mary and pat aren't going anywhere with their athletic careers because when judged by a universal higher standard, (like a professional athlete) they just don't cut it.
But we'll go on about how they have their strengths and weaknesses....when in reality they only have weakness from a higher standard.
....just because you are "bad" at math, doesn't make you "good" at english. Just because you are "bad" at achieving academic skills doesn't mean you are "good" at doing "street smart " activities.
But thats not how we think as a general whole because everyone is good at something. Even single limbed retards are born with a "kind heart"...I'm sure that the mild learning disorder on top of severe physical limitations resulting in social alienation would leave any challenged person feeling all warm and fuzzy/compassionate.
Some people are not good at ANYTHING, but we don't recognize this.