Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Mysticforex

Academic Achievers = Better Traders?

Recommended Posts

I know a lot of books written about trading say that there are no correlation. But if you notice, big multinational companies usually requires high CGPA for graduate positions and in some positions that need experience they still look for high academic grades to fill the roles.

 

So can we conclude that they think that high grades = better employees. My question to you all is, do you think there are any correlation between academic grades and trading success??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In both my first and second classes, I found that academic achievement was a strong indicator for success in trading...This is old news, as most wall street firms require a strong academic record from candidates.....and thats just to get an interview..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you need something to start the selection process, so why not use the 'fact' that a candidate might have some brains to start with. As a lot of finance and particularly trading is conceptual I think it does help to have the ability to show you can mentally grasp certain concepts, and have shown an ability to be able to apply them.

Larger companies also do a lot more personality type grading as well - more to ensure people fit into teams or roles - does that mean that many traders are potentially funneled into sales or risk?

 

A study I remember reading ( though the study was not in trading but I still think it applicable ) - then shows that motivation and perseverance plays a further and perhaps more important role to success.....

 

Personally I dont think being too academic necessarily helps - there is a certain amount of art involved, but you need someone who has a fair amount of self intelligence rather that pure academic abilities maybe. (Steve and other teachers may offer more insight here)

 

(If I was applying for a job now I would certainly not get in the door - only one degree, not enough mathematics)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Mysticforex said:
I know a lot of books written about trading say that there are no correlation. But if you notice, big multinational companies usually requires high CGPA for graduate positions and in some positions that need experience they still look for high academic grades to fill the roles.

 

So can we conclude that they think that high grades = better employees. My question to you all is, do you think there are any correlation between academic grades and trading success??

 

Multinational companies, institutional trading and so on...usually use academic success as a weeding tool to determine whom gets to get interviewed even though a few get into the interview process based upon their last name or whom their family knows.

 

In contrast, academic success is not a tool to determine ones success level after getting beyond the interview process. Simply, after getting the job...it comes down to whom you know and being in the right place at the right time because your actual trading results will be controlled, oversea until you moved up the ladder and then given more money to play with sort'uv speak.

 

I base my opinion via my own personal relationships. My old man was a floor trader (Univ. of Chicago alumni) and 4 of my best friends are currently institutional traders or work directly with traders (Northwestern Univ. alumni, Univ. of Michigan alumni, Boston Univ. alumni and London Business School alumni).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not think this to be true in general,what an academic achievement shows,however,is that someone spent a few years concentrating on a certain field and this is a trait necessary to become a successful trader.:2c:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it. Otherwise I'd be loaded :)

 

Academic achievement, in fact, probably doesn't correspond to very much at all outside of academia. What's more, trading performance probably doesn't correspond to much outside of net return; look at the turtles, where many of those who were the least successful as traders now manage the largest funds - they had another skill - understanding how to adapt their models to make them marketable to more risk-averse investors.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand why an HR department would seek out the best and the brightest academically, though from my experience it's a mixed bag. I've known those with several masters degrees who could not manage to assimilate in the workplace or through much of life.

 

I think emotional intelligence is probably a greater factor in the ultimate success of any employee and/or business person. Those that can combine delayed gratification, hard work, and a balanced life always seem to do better in the long run. Also, those who live lives of self confidence tempered with humility seem to be able to attract others to them... important and helpful in achieving any goal. These are skill sets that are built from living a disciplined life, and having good role models as a child. Success seems to find these folks... with good reason... and justly so.

 

Not sure that academics are that important, but you rarely find these skills in academic underachievers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that the answer is part of the old trading answer: you need to combine a lot of things to make it work.

 

So it may be that AA = conceptual skills, AA = enough maths maybe, AA = did at least do the work required to get the degree. And you probably aren't completely stupid.

 

But obviously that isn't enough. A twat who gets an MBA is still a twat. And trading is about a lot more than the skills tested while acquiring a degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Mysticforex said:
I know a lot of books written about trading say that there are no correlation. But if you notice, big multinational companies usually requires high CGPA for graduate positions and in some positions that need experience they still look for high academic grades to fill the roles.

 

So can we conclude that they think that high grades = better employees. My question to you all is, do you think there are any correlation between academic grades and trading success??

 

The trouble is that academic success usually only measures (and doesn't always do a good job) a small part of human intelligence and is in many cases severly narrowed with the often scientific/mathematical requirements asked for by companies advertising for jobs (obviously this isn't the only route into trading but it kinda helps to perpetuate the myth nevertheless).

 

Logical/mathmatical intelligence is only part of the equation for the probability of a trader's success, but I don't believe it is entirely necessary either. How much mathematics is really required? Look at the pit "type" traders. I think a better skill to have is situational awareness and spatial pattern recognition. These are associated far more with social ability. Although also, humans are very adaptable and just because someone seems to be socially adept, it really doesn't mean they have these specific skills either. They could have adapted themselves in spite of a huge deficit to their emotional intelligence/personality.

 

Human intelligence not only includes memory, conceptual understanding and logical application, but also emotional understanding and self control, perception, judgement, spatial/pattern recognition and probably other things that aren't immediately coming to mind! Clearly some of these things may be factors in certain areas of academia but others won't be tested much if at all.

 

Intelligence in its fullest form however, is only part of the equation for success in trading. Other important factors include motivation, determination, concentration, discipline, self-belief, strucured application and again probably other things which right now do not spring to mind!!

 

So getting back to the original question of whether academic success is correlated with trading success, I suspect probably not. However, like in any performance endeavour, to be the best of the best requires a fusion of most if not all abilities. So I also suspect that the most successful traders are those who naturally had academic success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most successful people are not academic achievers and I do not think it is a prerequisite to successful trading either. If you don't make it as a trader then the academic education will come in handy, but there is nothing that you will learn from academia that will assist you in trading. Trading is not a science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread starter question was essentially about corporate traders...not retail traders (those trading from their homes).

 

Simply, for corporate traders...the individual will need academic degree and academic success to get to their interview and a little more than that to land a job with the corporate. What happens after that...successful or not will greatly depend upon how fast of a learner, following the corporate rules and being in the right place at the right time.

 

In contrast, retail traders obviously don't need a academic degree nor academic success to open up a trading account. Yet, I would bet my life that the successful retail traders out there have at least a high school diploma or equivalent. Yet, depending upon the high school (academies and top tier private schools)...some are tough like a university.

 

Therefore, don't fool yourself into thinking you would have been just as successful in trading had you not gone to high school or college. The fact that schools or educators teach us how to read from an early age should be enough all by itself to give merits to education as a requirement to become a successful trader let alone just a trader.

 

Seriously, without the ability to read, do you think you can be a successful trader. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Academic "success" can also depend on how well you can cheat ... eg being foxy enough to get the test answers prior to final exams ... or getting the right person to sit the exam for you ... or knowing which underground site can issue your exam "pass" certificate.

 

I was once offered a medical degree (or any other degree I chose) from an obscure university via a URL ... there might be more than a few of those floating in the system!

 

Further, a story did the rounds that a first year med student complained about a high result in the Physics subject being one of the prerequisites to enter the faculty of medicine.

 

"Why is this" he complained, "when Physics is not really used in the study of human physiology and illness/wellness. Physics is a difficult subject."

 

The professor responded:

 

"Because we don't want idiots qualifying as doctors."

 

I guess it is the same in trading. Judging by my trading results in the past, I should have worked a lot harder on my year 12 Physics!

 

In my field I have worked with some professional idiots, yet they far out-rank me! One would think there would be a more appropriate entry requirement than academic achievement to qualify for a corporate trading spot.

 

Words such as adaptability, teachability, coolness under pressure, patience, tolerance come to mind. And I agree with The Negotiator and MightyMouse ... the real qualification for trading is not usually measurable academically - ie there is no screening test that guarantees the winner will also make a good trader.

 

Academic success can assist ... it is not essential.

 

I think the cliche: "killer instinct" might be handy ... because such people, to my mind, would exhibit such things as focus, discipline, consistency.

 

Of course, as we have heard elsewhere, being a sociopath almost guarantees you a job too! But to be honest, without experiencing the processfirst-hand, I simply have only an opinion, and that opinion will also be formed from concepts and preconceptions based on fact, fiction and hearsay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Mysticforex said:
I know a lot of books written about trading say that there are no correlation. But if you notice, big multinational companies usually requires high CGPA for graduate positions and in some positions that need experience they still look for high academic grades to fill the roles.

 

So can we conclude that they think that high grades = better employees. My question to you all is, do you think there are any correlation between academic grades and trading success??

 

Only very slightly. very, very slightly.

 

I believe those that have a higher aptitude for objective, emperically influenced, critical thinking skills, as well as a higher than average curiosity and a deep seated need to understand more, particularly that which is abstract, tend to be the types that have a higher than average aptitude for scholastic acheivement.

 

These same traits are also a big advantage when it comes to trading.

 

However, the are so easily undermined by SO MANY OTHER challenges in trading, and for the most important of all (psychology) they are just a bit better than useless....

 

It's something like being "a big guy" equating to being good at football (american football).

 

Yes, being 6 foot, 3 inches and weighing 255 lbs does indeed endow one to be naturally more likely to BECOME a professional football player....

 

but man, there are so many, many other things that matter more, or must be mastered regardless of physique, that it's basically statistically no advantage of being big, or only average, if you want to be a pro football player (how many guys out there are above average height and build, yet DIDN'T make it to the NFL??? probably about as many average sized guys that didn't.)

 

Yet, I will say without a doubt the best traders I know personally, and know of, were highly capable of academic excellence. Of course, many did not actually acheive great academic success for a variety of reasons... but, if they had applied themsleves, they would have. More so these days, with the pits and floors drying up. The raw, more primal instincts that one would find a potentially massive advantage in pit trading does not translate at all to the screen. So more so these days, I would say academic potential is more correlated to trading potential. but it's just that. potential. maybe. if everything is lines up too.

 

TraderX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.