MSF-MASTER OF SCIENCE OF FINACE

allenantonio

以我的浅薄的经历和观点
 MSF这个东西真的不值得去学
 
 就从字面上解释“SCIENCE” .这个是一门科学专业。
 什么是科学，比如物理，生物，数学等等，它们寻求“真理”。 牛顿三大定理，泰勒公式，等等。
 而金融，这个东西能提升到真理的高度吗？
 
 我个人对于SCIENCE MASTER的观点是，就如同一个 西北大学 MCC和KLOG学院联合办理的一个项目那样
--这个项目从来不招新博士生，只招硕士生
--只有在这个项目里读了硕士以后，才能被确定你是不是有能力进入博士阶段
--即使在其他美国学校学相同专业毕业的硕士，也必须先去西北读硕士才能被确定能不能读博士
而几乎每一个去申请这个专业的硕士都是冲着读博士去的

 硕士过程是给予学生将来做研究的技术和知识，并且慢慢的教会部分做研究的能力。为了将来博士研究的时候，可以有基本的能力，并且可以自己寻找到需要的材料发挥出自己的创造能力来创立创造一些东西。并且，通过硕士的过程，来审核一个人有没有那个能力去创造 和发现自己感兴趣的方向。

 Then how about MSF? Why MSF?

masu

ding~~~~~~~~~~~

gmatfucker

I don't need truth or knowledge.

I just want an offer from Goldman Sachs.

And MSF gives me one more year to achieve my goal.

allenantonio

I don't need truth or knowledge.

I just want an offer from Goldman Sachs.

And MSF gives me one more year to achieve my goal.

-- by 会员 gmatfucker (2011/11/5 10:03:32)

Your conclusion is not valid until you can prove that:

Define A=you are provided an offer from GS  ;   Bi=you finish a MSF program  from School i in I  ;   Ii=1,2,3,4...N ; N<infinit) ;

P(A丨Bi)>(A丨Ω-Sum(i in I) B(i))   and   P(bi)>0 for some i in I  

then  define e1  e2 in (0-1]

that P(A丨Bi)-P(A丨Ω-Sum(i in I) B(i))>=e1    and   P(bi)>=e2    for that i;

or  define e3 in (0-1]

that   max {[P(A丨Bi)-P(A丨Ω-Sum(i in I) B(i))] * P(bi)} >=e3  for V i in I ;

Otherwise your conclusion is not acceptable.

gmatfucker

I don't need truth or knowledge.

I just want an offer from Goldman Sachs.

And MSF gives me one more year to achieve my goal.

-- by 会员 gmatfucker (2011/11/5 10:03:32)

Your conclusion is not valid until you can prove that:

Define A=you are provided an offer from GS  ;   Bi=you finish a MSF program  from School i in I  ;   Ii=1,2,3,4...N ; N<infinit)

P(A丨Bi)>(A丨E-Sum(i in I) B(i))   and   P(bi)>0 for some i in I   ;

then  define e1  e2 in (0-1]

that P(A丨Bi)-P(A丨E-Sum(i in I) B(i))>e1    and   P(bi)>e2    for that i;

Otherwise your conclusion is not acceptable.

-- by 会员 allenantonio (2011/11/5 10:43:05)

So that's why economists always do meaningless things.
C = i finish my undergraduate degree.
P(A|Bi,C)>(A|C,non-Bi)  when P(A|Bi)>0
P(A|Bi,C)=P(A|C,non-Bi)  when P(A|Bi)=0

P(A|Bi, C) should never be smaller than P(A|C, non-Bi). If so, I'll not put Bi on my resume.

allenantonio

I don't need truth or knowledge.

I just want an offer from Goldman Sachs.

And MSF gives me one more year to achieve my goal.

-- by 会员 gmatfucker (2011/11/5 10:03:32)

Your conclusion is not valid until you can prove that:

Define A=you are provided an offer from GS  ;   Bi=you finish a MSF program  from School i in I  ;   Ii=1,2,3,4...N ; N<infinit)

P(A丨Bi)>(A丨E-Sum(i in I) B(i))   and   P(bi)>0 for some i in I   ;

then  define e1  e2 in (0-1]

that P(A丨Bi)-P(A丨E-Sum(i in I) B(i))>e1    and   P(bi)>e2    for that i;

Otherwise your conclusion is not acceptable.

-- by 会员 allenantonio (2011/11/5 10:43:05)

So that's why economists always do meaningless things.
C is i finish my undergraduate degree.
P(A|Bi,C)>(A|C,non-Bi)  when P(A|Bi)>0
P(A|Bi,C)=P(A|C,non-Bi)  when P(A|Bi)=0

P(A|Bi, C) should never be smaller than P(A|C, non-Bi). If so, I'll not put Bi on my resume.

-- by 会员 gmatfucker (2011/11/5 10:54:55)

would you please check the e value so that it is not only possible but also e-possible
talking about possible is usless or other naive if it is the case the probability is 10e-10 which could conclude to be 0 if e is not very very very small.

for e ,that is ε

allenantonio

and then

Define the utlilty funciton Θt(x)  and lets take costs, and time into consideration.

Although your conclusion will not be less convincing, it will be meaningless.

gmatfucker

and then

Define the utlilty funciton Θt(x)  and lets take costs, and time into consideration.

Although your conclusion will not be less convincing, while it will be meaningless.

-- by 会员 allenantonio (2011/11/5 11:08:58)

It's a call option where the biggest loss is "one year+tuition fee".  Whether to purchase this option depends on your own choice. To me, I'm a risk lover.

allenantonio

Before the utlilty, costs, and time consideration,
you should finish the ε- test to make your conclusion valid.

But thing is that you cant.
Well maybe you can pass the ε- test if you set ε as small as 10e-3, but such a samll ε give us some insight of the topic.

Actually 10e-3 is a very big # in this problem, as assume that the optimal solution is  j in I  for the problem " max {[P(A丨Bi)-P(A丨Ω-Sum(i in I) B(i))] * P(bi)} >=ε3  for V i in I ;"
Assume that the probalility of contract from GS is 1/50, which I thought is good enough for some very good school such as MIT
Assume that the probability of acceptance the J school is 1/20, which I though might possible for some very good school such as CMU assume that the candidate is quite very good.
(see, that MIT CMU is not a same school to be assumed in order that we can have a  large ε)
And lets do not consider the difference between with and without MSF form J, which will make ε even smaller.
Given independent that will be 10e-3.
But are 1/50  and   1/20  valid for one school for a person who apply for the MSF at average level?  Especailly under such a recision?
I dont think so.
ε might be 10e-4, 10e-5 or even less.

And what we are talking about is an optimal solution j. While, the j school can not be available for about 95% of the students apply for MSF (which I guess).
then E<<ε<10e-3  (10e-4, 10e-5 or even less)

If E<<ε<10e-3  (10e-4, 10e-5 or even less),in my opinion, it is unwise to make such a decision other than risky.

louisfong

我很耐心的看完了头俩个辨析。。。后面的由于奴家的真理掌握能力超出了掌控，只能帮顶了