So, I'm in my first night of Fixed Income/Equity Securities and Markets class and the Prof says if you want to make the big bucks on Wall Street you really need to get a PhD in either mathematics or physics. I had been thinking that an MBA, MACC, or MFA were degrees missing a certain element for a while, but it didn't reverberate quite as effectively in my head until I heard it coming from my prof. So yeah, way to go Bro (who's getting a PhD in physics)! We need to talk. You chose the correct path to enlightenment. In the meantime, I'll be getting by with the missing elements. Why couldn't someone just pay me to study everything pertaining to an understanding of business?
Just a hopeful thought for any capital contributors out there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
what if you don't like physics? Or math? It seems that the problem with this world is that they underestimate the need for thinkers, philosophers. My gosh, half of physics is just philosphy anyway. I mean, we get our ideas of how to run business form somewhere.
Interesting. Something is obviously off with the way our system values contributions to society economically - however, my assumption (as with any in a business school) is that to accurately maximize someone's return on investment, first, the necessary tools must be used to complete, or even reasonably estimate the task. But how can the task be finished in the fullest sense without a complete set of tools? Here is where my professor's suggestion came to light.
Certainly, on a broader scale the basic foundations to an idea cannot be ignored as important. Valuing these foundations and their contributors quantitatively, however, I would argue is virtually impossible and contains a level of subjectivity that should belong entirely outside the realm of business.
Post a Comment