4 ms·

> It makes more sense for an intelligent person to take the lower overhead and more achievable approach to becoming a value creator (e.g. full stack engineer wi

> It makes more sense for an intelligent person to take the lower overhead and more achievable approach to becoming a value creator (e.g. full stack engineer with a strong focus on product development) I would say that the surest way to make money for a mathematicaly-inclined person is to graduate in maths from a prestigious school and work in finance. At least, that's how I feel when I look at alumni from my school. People basically could specialize in finance or CS. Those that went into finance make consistently much more than the others. I wish I knew that at the time. I thought banks were boring and unappealing places. But now I think finance is one of the rare field (if not the only) where you can earn a lot with a technical, non-managerial position.

Davidp00 10y ago
>Those that went into finance make consistently much more than the others Hm, I would never have guessed that. Does anyone have any data on this? The top 1% sure, but the average and median also?
- wrong_variable 10y ago
  Finance is fairly broad. People in middle management whose job is basically to deal with paper work many times say they are "Working in Finance". Just like people working at helpdesk say they are working in "IT". Higher finance is filled with crazy maths, if you are interested in statistics and probability then finance is the best way to make a lot of money. Its also not "gambling,etc" - its educated decision making. People in higher management need to make a lot of very important decisions all the time. 90% of the time they just use their "gut feeling". This is where people with strong technical knowledge in finance comes in. Where to allocate money is a very hard question to answer, you can throw a random dart at your options or bring in complex ML models. The sky is the limit.
- sotojuan 10y ago
  I have no data either but one point is that the "ceiling" is higher. Meaning, a non-management programmer has a rough salary ceiling. Few programmers are paid $400k and it's not a very realistic goal. My mathematics -> finance friends (that are very good) virtually have little to no ceiling and have already doubled my salary. Like @wrong_variable said though, it depends what jobs and if they make it through (it's pretty competitive), so you're getting survivor bias from me.
kozikow 10y ago
Only few people in finance really "make it" - and it mostly consists of portfolio managers (quantitative or else). "Superstar economy" analogy discussed in this thread have very strong effect in finance. Luck is also a huge factor. I know cases of International Olympiad gold Medalists, who didn't make it as portfolio managers. Do you really think you are smarter? If you are mathematically inclined software engineer, I would avoid finance unless you are immediately hired into the quantitative role in the front office. In Silicon Valley you will get similar or better salary, more freedom, more respect and better culture. I worked on the both sides.
- yodsanklai 10y ago
  > To even get considered for the good quant position you need a good phd in applied mathematics or statistics. Are you sure about that? again, it's only anecdotal but I know at least 3 quants that didn't do a PhD (just a MS from reputable schools), including one that worked at GS as a new graduate. But there may very well be the exceptions.
  - kozikow 10y ago
    I was editing the post while you replied. I realised that my post wasn't conveying any useful point. In general, when many people hear Quant they think about quantitative portfolio manager - this is what I was talking about and where the "money" is at. It seems that IBs tend to use "quant" nowadays for a role that is very similar to Silicon Valley "data scientist".
- ethan_g 10y ago
  If you define "really make it" as making millions every year, yes that's rare. But if it's making 300k+ per year, there are multitudes of math-types doing that, and not much luck is involved.
  - kozikow 10y ago
    > But if it's making 300k+ per year In Silicon Valley it's not uncommon to see new grads (not even PhD) getting 200K total first year compensation. I was comparing quantitative finance vs silicon valley as a career for mathematically inclined software engineers. You won't end up poor either way.

Davidp00 10y ago

>Those that went into finance make consistently much more than the others Hm, I would never have guessed that. Does anyone have any data on this? The top 1% sure, but the average and median also?

wrong_variable 10y ago
Finance is fairly broad. People in middle management whose job is basically to deal with paper work many times say they are "Working in Finance". Just like people working at helpdesk say they are working in "IT". Higher finance is filled with crazy maths, if you are interested in statistics and probability then finance is the best way to make a lot of money. Its also not "gambling,etc" - its educated decision making. People in higher management need to make a lot of very important decisions all the time. 90% of the time they just use their "gut feeling". This is where people with strong technical knowledge in finance comes in. Where to allocate money is a very hard question to answer, you can throw a random dart at your options or bring in complex ML models. The sky is the limit.
sotojuan 10y ago
I have no data either but one point is that the "ceiling" is higher. Meaning, a non-management programmer has a rough salary ceiling. Few programmers are paid $400k and it's not a very realistic goal. My mathematics -> finance friends (that are very good) virtually have little to no ceiling and have already doubled my salary. Like @wrong_variable said though, it depends what jobs and if they make it through (it's pretty competitive), so you're getting survivor bias from me.

kozikow 10y ago

Only few people in finance really "make it" - and it mostly consists of portfolio managers (quantitative or else). "Superstar economy" analogy discussed in this thread have very strong effect in finance. Luck is also a huge factor. I know cases of International Olympiad gold Medalists, who didn't make it as portfolio managers. Do you really think you are smarter? If you are mathematically inclined software engineer, I would avoid finance unless you are immediately hired into the quantitative role in the front office. In Silicon Valley you will get similar or better salary, more freedom, more respect and better culture. I worked on the both sides.

yodsanklai 10y ago
> To even get considered for the good quant position you need a good phd in applied mathematics or statistics. Are you sure about that? again, it's only anecdotal but I know at least 3 quants that didn't do a PhD (just a MS from reputable schools), including one that worked at GS as a new graduate. But there may very well be the exceptions.
- kozikow 10y ago
  I was editing the post while you replied. I realised that my post wasn't conveying any useful point. In general, when many people hear Quant they think about quantitative portfolio manager - this is what I was talking about and where the "money" is at. It seems that IBs tend to use "quant" nowadays for a role that is very similar to Silicon Valley "data scientist".
ethan_g 10y ago
If you define "really make it" as making millions every year, yes that's rare. But if it's making 300k+ per year, there are multitudes of math-types doing that, and not much luck is involved.
- kozikow 10y ago
  > But if it's making 300k+ per year In Silicon Valley it's not uncommon to see new grads (not even PhD) getting 200K total first year compensation. I was comparing quantitative finance vs silicon valley as a career for mathematically inclined software engineers. You won't end up poor either way.