Finance is crap (1 Viewer)

[Conspirocy]

What if you are doing a staight commerce degree and have a WAM of around 80. Would they still prefer a comm/law student with say a wam of 75?

All the good actuaries do com/sci lol

nah you don't count you are studying actuarial so I don't know where to place you to be honest.

I guess the comparison would be the Com/Law person was originally smarter and could still be, they have knowledge of the law which im sure is needed for IB, and overall they are also older and in some cases people might think that means they are more mature.

 

[Vicly]

The heirarchy that I have observed for IB is as follows
- Com/Law (With or without honours in finance, but def a major in finance)
- Co-op/Scholarship Students (Doesn't have to be the finance ones)
- Com/Sci Students and Com/Eng Students
-Com Students with Honours in Finance
- Everyone Else
- Me

Edit: Oh and if your WAM isnt above 75 you wont be hearing from them anytime soon. Well maybe if its like 74.250

Where do Comm/Eco students fit? I'm hoping to get into IB (I know long way from now) with majors in Economics + Finance but I think that classifies me as "everyone else"!?

I'm also considering transferring from Comm/Eco to Comm/Law but I guess that'll be tough :/

 

[Conspirocy]

Where do Comm/Eco students fit? I'm hoping to get into IB (I know long way from now) with majors in Economics + Finance but I think that classifies me as "everyone else"!?

I'm also considering transferring from Comm/Eco to Comm/Law but I guess that'll be tough :/

Com/Ec Students will get an interview because they are interested in the degree, but that is only temporary. A lot of people who got grad jobs who did straight Com at UNSW were sent back last year to do Econometrics as well in the Com/Ec.

 

[§eraphim]

Schmeichung raises some pertinent points. Quants essentially only hire maths people (and any past connection to actuarial is usually irrelevant). Quant development needs software engineers.

I would say as a quant you need to understand the basic maths properly and know how to extend it to new applications. Furthermore, the models need to be programmed and must run efficiently.

I think a pure actuarial degree is highly unsuitable for a quant path as you basically rote learn a bunch of methods without any emphasis on proof, generalisations, etc. Also, the insurance industry moves at a glacial pace compared to finance, and hence the (absence of the) need for new models and new products means that students can just rely on a few classical methods.

at the bank i work in, i see actuaries in trading (front office) and risk management (middle office), but not in a quant role. So yeah, there is alot of misleading hype about actuarial being highly quanty.

 

[§eraphim]

The heirarchy that I have observed for IB is as follows
- Com/Law (With or without honours in finance, but def a major in finance)
- Co-op/Scholarship Students (Doesn't have to be the finance ones)
- Com/Sci Students and Com/Eng Students
-Com Students with Honours in Finance
- Everyone Else
- Me

Edit: Oh and if your WAM isnt above 75 you wont be hearing from them anytime soon. Well maybe if its like 74.250

The ordering is basically in line with the UAI cutoffs (which should be a fairly adequate predictor of an average WAM range, eg UAI 99.7+ ---> WAM 83+, etc). Maybe we should just ditch the degree classification, and use UAI as a yardstick of readiness for IB. I know it sounds cruel to tell the majority of people that you won't get into IB (with a high probability), but I think its useful information and a reality check for year 12 students selecting degrees and ultimately choosing careers. To be frank, I think the probability of sucess decays exponentially if your UAI is less than 99.

 

[Conspirocy]

The ordering is basically in line with the UAI cutoffs (which should be a fairly adequate predictor of an average WAM range, eg UAI 99.7+ ---> WAM 83+, etc). Maybe we should just ditch the degree classification, and use UAI as a yardstick of readiness for IB. I know it sounds cruel to tell the majority of people that you won't get into IB (with a high probability), but I think its useful information and a reality check for year 12 students selecting degrees and ultimately choosing careers. To be frank, I think the probability of sucess decays exponentially if your UAI is less than 99.

I think that on the whole is true. However, you should point out that there are obviously going to be some exceptions. I think overall the best measure of readiness for IB is both on a qualitative and quantitative measure. Hence why firms conduct interviews and internal testing, and focus on granting interviews to peoeple with a certain WAM. I think WAM is a better indicator than UAI.

 

[§eraphim]

I think that on the whole is true. However, you should point out that there are obviously going to be some exceptions. I think overall the best measure of readiness for IB is both on a qualitative and quantitative measure. Hence why firms conduct interviews and internal testing, and focus on granting interviews to peoeple with a certain WAM. I think WAM is a better indicator than UAI.

The exceptions to the rule have been noted previously, eg my statement "with high probability".

I disagree with your view on WAM. It would be safe to assume that ppl try very hard during their HSC so the UAI is a good summary measure of performance of students in the same situation (fewer distractions than uni). However, upon entering uni, we see a big tradeoff between studying (and the associated WAM) as well as participating in other activities, eg socialising, more opportunities to do extra-curricular activities (ECA), etc. The quality and quantity of ECA is hard to quantify and use for comparison (in contrast with WAM), and both WAM and ECA are considered for jobs as sign of skills, intelligence, etc. Also, intelligent people would be able to manage both study and ECA fairly capably. And UAI is a way of measuring intelligence (I'm not saying its the best way, but it is the only uniform measure of performance of students in the same situation, ie, without distractions to pure study).

 

[Conspirocy]

The exceptions to the rule have been noted previously, eg my statement "with high probability".

I disagree with your view on WAM. It would be safe to assume that people try very hard during their HSC so the UAI is a good summary measure of performance of students in the same situation (fewer distractions than uni). However, upon entering uni, we see a big trade-off between studying (and the associated WAM) as well as participating in other activities, eg socialising, more opportunities to do extra-curricular activities (ECA), etc. The quality and quantity of ECA is hard to quantify and use for comparison (in contrast with WAM), and both WAM and ECA are considered for jobs as sign of skills, intelligence, etc. Also, intelligent people would be able to manage both study and ECA fairly capably. And UAI is a way of measuring intelligence (I'm not saying it’s the best way, but it is the only uniform measure of performance of students in the same situation, ie, without distractions to pure study).

Sorry can't agree with your view on the UAI. There are a number of factors that will influence your performance. The arguments you make about why the WAM is not an accurate level regarding a trade-off between study and other activities are just as true for the UAI. Students play sports, have religion, go out and so on. In fact the level of work they actually do for their HSC is over a year, compared to 14 weeks per session at uni, where you are consistently tested. Students are in fact consistently tested at university, and these results are maintained at university through a system that aggregates the average of their performance, or they drop off. The UAI is a static measure at a point in time, a one off statistic.

My main point for why the UAI is not an accurate measure is because of the different maturity levels of people when they are in high school. At university it is definitely apparent that people are more mature, and thus the WAM is in fact a more uniform measure of performance because maturity and development levels can be factored out.

You associated a higher UAI with a higher WAM before. If you believe this to be true, then how can you say that the WAM is not an accurate measure.

If you broke down the marks for law students, who all have an exceptionally high UAI, why then do they not all perform at an above distinction level. If the UAI was an accurate more accurate measure there would not be a bell curve in law. All students would get the same marks because they are all capable of obtaining the same result via their similar IQs. To say that other activities are the reason for any difference is accurate, however I would point out that a change in the maturity and development of individuals also plays a part as well.

 

[§eraphim]

There are a few counter arguments that come to my mind, but the most important one is:

- Grading policies differ between faculties as marks awarded are awarded to differentiate between the best, the average and the worst performing students within a particular subject ("spread" of the marks distribution). That is a more logical reason as why high-UAI law students find it hard to get HD averages in law. Thus, grades from different faculties are not comparable in any meaningful way, and WAM does not account for these differences at all.

UAI is the better indicator as it scales for these different factors in a consistent way.

 

[schmeichung]

There are a few counter arguments that come to my mind, but the most important one is:

- Grading policies differ between faculties as marks awarded are awarded to differentiate between the best, the average and the worst performing students within a particular subject ("spread" of the marks distribution). That is a more logical reason as why high-UAI law students find it hard to get HD averages in law. Thus, grades from different faculties are not comparable in any meaningful way, and WAM does not account for these differences at all.

UAI is the better indicator as it scales for these different factors in a consistent way.

I can't agree with you more. ACTL people are one of many who suffer the lack of differentiability in WAM. I had an interview (non-ACTL job) and the interviewer asked why I performed ACTL worse than FINS. I explained to her that FINS is easier than ACTL in terms of workload, institute requirements but she was not convinced at all.

However employers tend to focus on recent marks (WAM) than UAI. What I mean is the chance of getting interviews are much higher even if you get low UAI but high WAM, not if you get high UAI low WAM.