Originally Posted by mirramax
thanks for replying to my question. i think it has been there for the longest time without anyone else replying.
i understand where you're coming from about the rigor of the QF program at SMU. i have done my own research as well. engaging current students and sussing out details of their employment post SMU and it does not seem that dire. a few of them managed to secure MFE places at Columbia and CMU (out of a small group of about 20) but they did mention that they did some learning outside of the syllabus.
EDIT: with respect to the QF portion, i do intend to do my exchange at Carnegie Mellon and take hard science modules there to strengthen my application to a MFE program later on.
personally, i'm curious as to why you said people who chose SMU made the worst decision of their lives? from a local perspective, quite a few top students from the A levels choose SMU. (they have low cutoffs but the stats don't reveal the proportion of straight A students who choose it) and their star graduates do earn more than the star grads of NUS & NTU(up to 2007 at least)
i have chosen to go to SMU as i have been offer their top tier scholarship. even without that, from a business perspective i believe SMU to be superior to NTU and NUS's program because of the training and opportunities. Ideally, i would do my bachelor's at an Ivy but my family can't afford that and being bonded just defeats the purpose of getting that brand name degree.
Are you currently a first yr at SMU?
1. You really trust what SMU says? They are some of the best "statisticians" in the world, better than the U.S. government and even better than our own dear Labour government.
2. For many of those "star" A-levelers who entered SMU, their degree choice (and future) are effectively a leveraged bet on the financial industry. Now that the bubble has popped, the chickens are coming home to roost.
3. Seems like herd mentality to me. The four most expensive words in the English lanuage are This time it s different. Whenever people say it is a New Paradigm!!, be very careful.
To be honest, there is a lot of similarities between this bubble and the dot com. There are absolutely zero reasons why, after adjusting for education, gender and age, people in finance earn more than those in other industries. For the volume effect (i.e., the work can be copied many times over), the software industry have it. If moving expensive stuff (i.e., paper money) means people in finance will earn more, then why not become gold miners, oil producers and jewellery dealers? The only reason is that the area is new. When there is a new area, there will be a profitable margin, before competition start coming into to push the margin down.
Thinking about when Windows 95 and 98 came out, and how badly you needed it. The Black Scholes Merton formula, the CDO paper by David Li and the improvement in technology for clearing have fueled the finance boom.
There are actually loads of people out on the street with MBAs and no jobs. MBA itself is another big bubble.