Was this a bad cycle for splitters and T14? Forum

[drblakedowns]

What are you talking about? That is exactly what I did during my undergraduate education- applied theory to practice. The theory I am referencing is factually wrong and does not apply to the real world nor can it be used in the real world as a reliable measure of allocating capital.

If I teach in a class all cars are black and we all walk outside and see a blue car we now know that not all cars are black. So you shouldn't keep teaching the theory all cars are black year after year, class after class.

I am talking about teaching a class where we look at a simplified model of all black cars to learn how to think about cars and problems to be solved with those cars, and then when they walk outside and see the blue cars, they can extend the approach that worked with black cars to solve the new problems.

Here is a better example. When I taught formal logic, we started with propositional logic. Propositional logic is not terribly useful, but the way you think about it, and the way you approach it is similar to what you would do with the more complicated (but more useful) formal logics. So by teaching this "useless model," I taught skills that were applicable to real world situations.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Look, reading that wiki page alone makes clear the significance of MPT to finance as a scholarly field. Because it's criticized doesn't mean it's wrong - all scholarly theories get criticized. And because you don't think a theoretical model is worth studying doesn't make you objectively correct that it's garbage. Sorry your field contains a lot of stuff you don't agree with? That doesn't make the profs idiots to teach it - in fact if it was taught in multiple classes, that suggests a scholarly consensus on its importance to the field.

There are a few constitutional law cases I read at least 3-4 times in different law school classes. I can think that the cases are completely wrong and even harmful, but that doesn't make my profs idiots for teaching them.

You have a really narrow view of what it's worthwhile to study. That's fine, you can value what you want to value. But you can't say that your profs were full of shit for teaching you something that's important to the field just because it doesn't fit your narrow view not factually accurate.

No response to my previous post addressing this post?

If you cant see the value in learning about contestedtheories that are factually inaccurate that make poor assumptions then you have an accurate ridiculously narrowview of education. Try trade school.

I fixed it for you.

In many cases the importance is not in learning the simplified model or toy system, but in learning how to work with it. You seem to be missing that.

What are you talking about? That is exactly what I did during my undergraduate education- applied theory to practice. The theory I am referencing is factually wrong and does not apply to the real world nor can it be used in the real world as a reliable measure of allocating capital.

If I teach in a class all cars are black and we all walk outside and see a blue car we now know that not all cars are black. So you shouldn't keep teaching the theory all cars are black year after year, class after class.

Unless you were taught an incorrect theory that blue really is a color and not just a shade of black. Seems the problem potentially goes all the way back to pre-school!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jnwa]

Look, reading that wiki page alone makes clear the significance of MPT to finance as a scholarly field. Because it's criticized doesn't mean it's wrong - all scholarly theories get criticized. And because you don't think a theoretical model is worth studying doesn't make you objectively correct that it's garbage. Sorry your field contains a lot of stuff you don't agree with? That doesn't make the profs idiots to teach it - in fact if it was taught in multiple classes, that suggests a scholarly consensus on its importance to the field.

There are a few constitutional law cases I read at least 3-4 times in different law school classes. I can think that the cases are completely wrong and even harmful, but that doesn't make my profs idiots for teaching them.

You have a really narrow view of what it's worthwhile to study. That's fine, you can value what you want to value. But you can't say that your profs were full of shit for teaching you something that's important to the field just because it doesn't fit your narrow view not factually accurate.

No response to my previous post addressing this post?

If you cant see the value in learning about contestedtheories that are factually inaccurate that make poor assumptions then you have an accurate ridiculously narrowview of education. Try trade school.

I fixed it for you.

In many cases the importance is not in learning the simplified model or toy system, but in learning how to work with it. You seem to be missing that.

What are you talking about? That is exactly what I did during my undergraduate education- applied theory to practice. The theory I am referencing is factually wrong and does not apply to the real world nor can it be used in the real world as a reliable measure of allocating capital.

If I teach in a class all cars are black and we all walk outside and see a blue car we now know that not all cars are black. So you shouldn't keep teaching the theory all cars are black year after year, class after class.

You were that kid in high school algebra who raised his hand and asked "when are we ever going to use this in real life" werent you? Did they teach you why the theory was wrong? If so then you fucking learned something. I learned about modernization theory in my development program. In context it basically claims that 3rd world countries are essentially early versions of first world countries that will develop the same way in time. This is bullshit, but i learned why it was bullshit.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Look, reading that wiki page alone makes clear the significance of MPT to finance as a scholarly field. Because it's criticized doesn't mean it's wrong - all scholarly theories get criticized. And because you don't think a theoretical model is worth studying doesn't make you objectively correct that it's garbage. Sorry your field contains a lot of stuff you don't agree with? That doesn't make the profs idiots to teach it - in fact if it was taught in multiple classes, that suggests a scholarly consensus on its importance to the field.

There are a few constitutional law cases I read at least 3-4 times in different law school classes. I can think that the cases are completely wrong and even harmful, but that doesn't make my profs idiots for teaching them.

You have a really narrow view of what it's worthwhile to study. That's fine, you can value what you want to value. But you can't say that your profs were full of shit for teaching you something that's important to the field just because it doesn't fit your narrow view not factually accurate.

No response to my previous post addressing this post?

If you cant see the value in learning about contestedtheories that are factually inaccurate that make poor assumptions then you have an accurate ridiculously narrowview of education. Try trade school.

I fixed it for you.

In many cases the importance is not in learning the simplified model or toy system, but in learning how to work with it. You seem to be missing that.

What are you talking about? That is exactly what I did during my undergraduate education- applied theory to practice. The theory I am referencing is factually wrong and does not apply to the real world nor can it be used in the real world as a reliable measure of allocating capital.

If I teach in a class all cars are black and we all walk outside and see a blue car we now know that not all cars are black. So you shouldn't keep teaching the theory all cars are black year after year, class after class.

You were that kid in high school algebra who raised his hand and asked "when are we ever going to use this in real life" werent you? Did they teach you why the theory was wrong?

Lol no. People still believe this stuff.


If so then you fucking learned something.

You can't be serious. No one is this ridiculous. If so pay me $10,000. I have a great education I'd like to sell you. At the end I'll tell you everything I taught you was bullshit, but at the end atleast you'll know what I said was bullshit. Hey, you learned something kid, thanks for the $10,000.

I learned about modernization theory in my development program. In context it basically claims that 3rd world countries are essentially early versions of first world countries that will develop the same way in time. This is bullshit, but i learned why it was bullshit.

Yeah, but that isn't how this was taught. It wasn't taught as a faulty theory within the context of what was correct.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

What are you talking about? That is exactly what I did during my undergraduate education- applied theory to practice. The theory I am referencing is factually wrong and does not apply to the real world nor can it be used in the real world as a reliable measure of allocating capital.

If I teach in a class all cars are black and we all walk outside and see a blue car we now know that not all cars are black. So you shouldn't keep teaching the theory all cars are black year after year, class after class.

I am talking about teaching a class where we look at a simplified model of all black cars to learn how to think about cars and problems to be solved with those cars, and then when they walk outside and see the blue cars, they can extend the approach that worked with black cars to solve the new problems.

Here is a better example. When I taught formal logic, we started with propositional logic. Propositional logic is not terribly useful, but the way you think about it, and the way you approach it is similar to what you would do with the more complicated (but more useful) formal logics. So by teaching this "useless model," I taught skills that were applicable to real world situations.

Again though, that isn't how it is taught and this can't be extended to some other useful purpose. You are adding context to justify teaching false theories as factually accurate. It wasn't a critical thinking test to test our ability to discern the model wasn't true and afterwards they didn't provide us with some true, more accurate model.

It was provided as an accurate way to go about allocating capital.

[WinterComing]

I'm just a lowly 0L, but based on what I know of legal education, it's a really good thing that ASDF is not going to law school. I mean, they don't even teach you the law (and after three years, you have to take a bar course to figure it out)! Instead, they teach you a bunch of worthless stuff like how to think like a lawyer and how to analyze cases and situations and fact patterns. And sometimes this analysis requires you to consider laws that, gasp, are outdated or, the horror, only apply in certain states.

ETA: At first, I thought ASDF's tar was laughing Teddy, but now I realize that Teddy must be crying at the all-out assault ASDF is leading on intelligent discourse.

ETA2: Yes, I realize that these ad hominem attacks don't address the substance of ASDF's arguments, but there is just so little substance to address.

[drblakedowns]

Again though, that isn't how it is taught . . .

I think this is the problem. You are jumping from your experience to make a claim about how something is everywhere. This is probably a fallacy.

There is also the possibility that there is a difference between what was actually taught, and what you believe was taught. Based on this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Again though, that isn't how it is taught . . .

I think this is the problem. You are jumping from your experience to make a claim about how something is everywhere. This is probably a fallacy.

With jowl angrily shaking back and forth..... yeah because it is just simply UNFATHOMABBBBBBLE that academia has ever done anything wrong.



There is also the possibility that there is a difference between what was actually taught, and what you believe was taught. Based on this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

Oh how cute of an assumption! Seriously man....... dem feels.


Well I obviously can't attest to what context modern portfolio theory is taught at every university in every Finance class. However, my understanding is that most schools teach subjects in a relatively standardized way.

Still, simply walking away knowing X is untrue doesn't tell you what is true; which, is obviously what you care about.......

And evaluating people based on how well they know untrue theories so that they can study more untrue theories is the height of idiocy.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

I'm just a lowly 0L, but based on what I know of legal education, it's a really good thing that ASDF is not going to law school. I mean, they don't even teach you the law (and after three years, you have to take a bar course to figure it out)! Instead, they teach you a bunch of worthless stuff like how to think like a lawyer and how to analyze cases and situations and fact patterns. And sometimes this analysis requires you to consider laws that, gasp, are outdated or, the horror, only apply in certain states.

ETA: At first, I thought ASDF's tar was laughing Teddy, but now I realize that Teddy must be crying at the all-out assault ASDF is leading on intelligent discourse.

ETA2: Yes, I realize that these ad hominem attacks don't address the substance of ASDF's arguments, but there is just so little substance to address.

Again you are referencing old laws in the context of new, correct factually accurate laws. I am referencing a financial theory that is wrong without some correct theory replacing it and is in fact taught as being factually accurate.

Your analogy isn't applicable here and your pathetic attempts to stay in the conversation by saying asdf lacks substance but not addressing the substance of my post directly is just that...... pathetic.

[drblakedowns]

Again though, that isn't how it is taught . . .

I think this is the problem. You are jumping from your experience to make a claim about how something is everywhere. This is probably a fallacy.

With jowl angrily shaking back and forth..... yeah because it is just simply UNFATHOMABBBBBBLE that academia has ever done anything wrong.



There is also the possibility that there is a difference between what was actually taught, and what you believe was taught. Based on this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

Oh how cute of an assumption! Seriously man....... dem feels.


Well I obviously can't attest to what context modern portfolio theory is taught at every university in every Finance class. However, my understanding is that most schools teach subjects in a relatively standardized way.

Still, simply walking away knowing X is untrue doesn't tell you what is true; which, is obviously what you care about.......

And evaluating people based on how well they know untrue theories so that they can study more untrue theories is the height of idiocy.

And now you have gone from being a troll to being a jackass (which should be of no surprise, given your behavior ITT).
100% my fault for feeding the trolls. You win. grats.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Again though, that isn't how it is taught . . .

I think this is the problem. You are jumping from your experience to make a claim about how something is everywhere. This is probably a fallacy.

With jowl angrily shaking back and forth..... yeah because it is just simply UNFATHOMABBBBBBLE that academia has ever done anything wrong.



There is also the possibility that there is a difference between what was actually taught, and what you believe was taught. Based on this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

Oh how cute of an assumption! Seriously man....... dem feels.


Well I obviously can't attest to what context modern portfolio theory is taught at every university in every Finance class. However, my understanding is that most schools teach subjects in a relatively standardized way.

Still, simply walking away knowing X is untrue doesn't tell you what is true; which, is obviously what you care about.......

And evaluating people based on how well they know untrue theories so that they can study more untrue theories is the height of idiocy.

And now you have gone from being a troll to being a jackass (which should be of no surprise, given your behavior ITT).
100% my fault for feeding the trolls. You win. grats.

Lol don't be a cry baby after you post shit like"There is also the possibility that there is a difference between what was actually taught, and what you believe was taught. Based on this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case" .

I wasn't trolling and I am still not trolling, but hey when you lose in real life do you just say that the other attorney was just lacking substance and a "troll"?

Now I am being an asshole.

[drblakedowns]

I'm just a lowly 0L, but based on what I know of legal education, it's a really good thing that ASDF is not going to law school. I mean, they don't even teach you the law (and after three years, you have to take a bar course to figure it out)! Instead, they teach you a bunch of worthless stuff like how to think like a lawyer and how to analyze cases and situations and fact patterns. And sometimes this analysis requires you to consider laws that, gasp, are outdated or, the horror, only apply in certain states.

ETA: At first, I thought ASDF's tar was laughing Teddy, but now I realize that Teddy must be crying at the all-out assault ASDF is leading on intelligent discourse.

ETA2: Yes, I realize that these ad hominem attacks don't address the substance of ASDF's arguments, but there is just so little substance to address.

Again you are referencing old laws in the context of new, correct factually accurate laws. I am referencing a financial theory that is wrong without some correct theory replacing it and is in fact taught as being factually accurate.

Your analogy isn't applicable here and your pathetic attempts to stay in the conversation by saying asdf lacks substance but not addressing the substance of my post directly is just that...... pathetic.

ASDF: look at this example that exemplifies what I believe is wrong with academia.

Everyone Else: While we do disagree with your example, here are other examples/arguments that show that your case is not typical of academia.

ASDF: Yeah, but MPT is still stupid.

Everyone else: . . .

[asdfdfdfadfas]

I'm just a lowly 0L, but based on what I know of legal education, it's a really good thing that ASDF is not going to law school. I mean, they don't even teach you the law (and after three years, you have to take a bar course to figure it out)! Instead, they teach you a bunch of worthless stuff like how to think like a lawyer and how to analyze cases and situations and fact patterns. And sometimes this analysis requires you to consider laws that, gasp, are outdated or, the horror, only apply in certain states.

ETA: At first, I thought ASDF's tar was laughing Teddy, but now I realize that Teddy must be crying at the all-out assault ASDF is leading on intelligent discourse.

ETA2: Yes, I realize that these ad hominem attacks don't address the substance of ASDF's arguments, but there is just so little substance to address.

Again you are referencing old laws in the context of new, correct factually accurate laws. I am referencing a financial theory that is wrong without some correct theory replacing it and is in fact taught as being factually accurate.

Your analogy isn't applicable here and your pathetic attempts to stay in the conversation by saying asdf lacks substance but not addressing the substance of my post directly is just that...... pathetic.

ASDF: look at this example that exemplifies what I believe is wrong with academia.

Everyone Else: While we do disagree with your example, here are other non-analogous examples/arguments taught in a different context that show that your case is not typical of academia.

ASDF: Yeah, but MPT is still stupid. your non-analogous examples are taught in a different context than MPT was taught. MPT is completely false taught as truth without providing some correct answer, your examples are taught as old theories with erroneous assumptions, but then you are provided a new, correct theory.

Everyone else:. . .Your posts lack substance, you are a trolllll, you are an idiot.

I fixed it for you.

[WinterComing]

ASDF, I think you're mistaking browbeating everyone else into exasperation for winning. A less self-assured individual might pause to consider the implications of every single other participant in a discussion disagreeing with him. But then again, as you've stated several times, I guess you're just smarter than all of us.

It seems like what started out as such a highfalutin moral stand against the shortcomings of academia really boils down to you feeling like your undergrad education was less useful and more unfair than you would have liked, because some professor taught you an outdated theory one time, and you're butthurt that your GPA prevents you from getting into a good law school with a good scholarship. I have no idea why you keep railing on this MPT example, which is at best tangentially related to the original discussion, but I'll pour one out for you anyway.

[drblakedowns]

I'm just a lowly 0L, but based on what I know of legal education, it's a really good thing that ASDF is not going to law school. I mean, they don't even teach you the law (and after three years, you have to take a bar course to figure it out)! Instead, they teach you a bunch of worthless stuff like how to think like a lawyer and how to analyze cases and situations and fact patterns. And sometimes this analysis requires you to consider laws that, gasp, are outdated or, the horror, only apply in certain states.

ETA: At first, I thought ASDF's tar was laughing Teddy, but now I realize that Teddy must be crying at the all-out assault ASDF is leading on intelligent discourse.

ETA2: Yes, I realize that these ad hominem attacks don't address the substance of ASDF's arguments, but there is just so little substance to address.

Again you are referencing old laws in the context of new, correct factually accurate laws. I am referencing a financial theory that is wrong without some correct theory replacing it and is in fact taught as being factually accurate.

Your analogy isn't applicable here and your pathetic attempts to stay in the conversation by saying asdf lacks substance but not addressing the substance of my post directly is just that...... pathetic.

ASDF: look at this example that exemplifies what I believe is wrong with academia.

Everyone Else: While we do disagree with your example, here are other non-analogous examples/arguments taught in a different context that show that your case is not typical of academia.

ASDF: Yeah, but MPT is still stupid. your non-analogous examples are taught in a different context than MPT was taught. MPT is completely false taught as truth without providing some correct answer, your examples are taught as old theories with erroneous assumptions, but then you are provided a new, correct theory.

Everyone else:. . .Your posts lack substance, you are a trolllll, you are an idiot.

I fixed it for you.

Arguing the merits of the the methodology associated with teaching MPT is incredibly narrow, and this is not a very good forum for that (I doubt many people on this board have taken that class, I know I haven't). I would suggest finding some kind of finance forum to discuss the minutia of on aspect of one degree program.

Here is another example that shows that your critiques of MPT may not extend to all of academia. In game theory, there are assumptions about rational decision making that are just not applicable to how humans have been shown to make decisions. Does this make game-theory (and everything in economics that is based on rational decision makers) not useful at all? I think that there are enough examples of game-theory and economics being useful that it is beneficial to teach things based on wrong models.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

ASDF, I think you're mistaking browbeating everyone else into exasperation for winning. A less self-assured individual might pause to consider the implications of every single other participant in a discussion disagreeing with him. But then again, as you've stated several times, I guess you're just smarter than all of us.

What is amazing to me is that you keep going off on tangents, never addressing the actual points of my arguments. Oh aren't you just a victim of my exhaustive browbeating? Last time I checked, I was cordial the entire conversation until the end. It seems a common theme on here is to engage in an argument, go back and forth for awhile, someone starts with the ad hominem attacks, I continue to respond politely, you continue the ad hominem attacks, then I finally pour it back on and tell you to actually address my point, and you run away some weak, meek, exhausted victim crying foul.

It seems like what started out as such a highfalutin moral stand against the shortcomings of academia really boils down to you feeling like your undergrad education was less useful and more unfair than you would have liked, because some professor taught you an outdated theory one time, and you're butthurt that your GPA prevents you from getting into a good law school with a good scholarship.

Actually at this point it isn't in my current financial interest to go to law school unless I was predestined with a biglaw job and no debt. I work a real job doing real things and studied for the lsat in the morning and at night. I already explained that in another thread; which, doesn't mean I am not still considering it. Of course I don't like the fact my GPA is going to be held against me until I am 9000 years old. I find it ridiculously comical and childish and missing the entire point of what a GPA is supposed to indicate - a thorough understanding of the subject you studied. I did that, I just spent more time applying the correct knowledge.


I have no idea why you keep railing on this MPT example, which is at best tangentially related to the original discussion, but I'll pour one out for you anyway.

It was simply one example. You and I both know there are many many more and it was directly related to the original discussion.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

I'm just a lowly 0L, but based on what I know of legal education, it's a really good thing that ASDF is not going to law school. I mean, they don't even teach you the law (and after three years, you have to take a bar course to figure it out)! Instead, they teach you a bunch of worthless stuff like how to think like a lawyer and how to analyze cases and situations and fact patterns. And sometimes this analysis requires you to consider laws that, gasp, are outdated or, the horror, only apply in certain states.

ETA: At first, I thought ASDF's tar was laughing Teddy, but now I realize that Teddy must be crying at the all-out assault ASDF is leading on intelligent discourse.

ETA2: Yes, I realize that these ad hominem attacks don't address the substance of ASDF's arguments, but there is just so little substance to address.

Again you are referencing old laws in the context of new, correct factually accurate laws. I am referencing a financial theory that is wrong without some correct theory replacing it and is in fact taught as being factually accurate.

Your analogy isn't applicable here and your pathetic attempts to stay in the conversation by saying asdf lacks substance but not addressing the substance of my post directly is just that...... pathetic.

ASDF: look at this example that exemplifies what I believe is wrong with academia.

Everyone Else: While we do disagree with your example, here are other non-analogous examples/arguments taught in a different context that show that your case is not typical of academia.

ASDF: Yeah, but MPT is still stupid. your non-analogous examples are taught in a different context than MPT was taught. MPT is completely false taught as truth without providing some correct answer, your examples are taught as old theories with erroneous assumptions, but then you are provided a new, correct theory.

Everyone else:. . .Your posts lack substance, you are a trolllll, you are an idiot.

I fixed it for you.

Arguing the merits of the the methodology associated with teaching MPT is incredibly narrow, and this is not a very good forum for that (I doubt many people on this board have taken that class, I know I haven't). I would suggest finding some kind of finance forum to discuss the minutia of on aspect of one degree program.

Here is another example that shows that your critiques of MPT may not extend to all of academia. In game theory, there are assumptions about rational decision making that are just not applicable to how humans have been shown to make decisions. Does this make game-theory (and everything in economics that is based on rational decision makers) not useful at all? I think that there are enough examples of game-theory and economics being useful that it is beneficial to teach things based on wrong models.

I used MPT as an example just to elucidate ONE factor in my larger point.

But again you are making false analogies. Yeah MPT might be useful in understanding some relatively complex math, but if you want to learn complex math go study complex math, that isn't the point and the theory isn't being taught as some transition into a larger point. It is the larger point.

Again though, that is game theory taught within a frame work of it being beneficial, not as definitive truth. it is being used to transition into something else. I mean there are international trade theories that have some RIDICULOUS assumptions but they are being used to illustrate some important point; which, of course I am fine with.

[drblakedowns]

I used MPT as an example just to elucidate ONE factor in my larger point.

It seems to be that your larger point is that there are serious issues in academia, and the way MPT is taught is typical example of this. (If this is not your larger point, please clarify).

However, every time you are presented with a counter-example that has similar features as the teaching of MPT but does not support your argument about problems in academia, your response is "those counter-examples are not the same as my MPT example." Here is the rub, if your MPT example is a unique case, where anything that is not exactly the same is irrelevant to your argument, then you lose the ability to use it as a typical case. Because in both my undergraduate and graduate schooling, I have not come across anything similar to your experience with how MPT was taught to you.

[drblakedowns]

Let's start with something really basic and just an obvious example that reaffirms what I have been saying in here. In undergraduate Finance education Modern Portfolio Theory is taught over and over again. Modern Portfolio theory state's that the risk of purchasing a stock is it's variance, or it's Beta. Is that true? I mean anyone with half a brain knows that is false.

Here is a common criticism that should take you about two seconds to realize is true-

"Despite its theoretical importance, critics of MPT question whether it is an ideal investment tool, because its model of financial markets does not match the real world in many ways.[3]"

Ok so why should I sit there and memorize this for your test in multiple different classes? This doesn't bring me any value because the theory itself is unequivocally false. Doing practice problems with theoretical examples of modern portfolio theory is a waste of time. So you cross it off and keep going. You don't sit there wasting your time studying/ memorizing debunked theories in multiple classes with different names. It is an over convolution of reality and trying to apply fancy statistics to human behavior.

It's garbage.

I was curious as to if your argument about MPT held water, so I ran it by a few of my close friends that work in finance.

According to those who understand this topic, you are mischaracterizing what risk is.
Beta is one of many ways to measure risk, but not the only way.

Also your point that 'Beta is one of many ways to measure risk therefore mpt is objectively false' is nonsense.

Mainly your argument about the uselessness of MPT falls apart because a model can still be useful even if it does not exactly match the real world.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

I used MPT as an example just to elucidate ONE factor in my larger point.

It seems to be that your larger point is that there are serious issues in academia, and the way MPT is taught is one typical example of one of the serious issues with academia. (If this is not your larger point, please clarify).

I corrected this.

However, every time you are presented with a counter-example that has similar features as the teaching of MPT but does not support your argument about problems in academia, your response is "those counter-examples are not the same as my MPT example." Here is the rub, if your MPT example is a unique case

I never stated it was a unique case, as I said it was one example that I decided to use.

, where anything that is not exactly the same is irrelevant to your argument, then you lose the ability to use it as a typical case. Because in both my undergraduate and graduate schooling, I have not come across anything similar to your experience with how MPT was taught to you.

Ok well your experience is different than mine

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Let's start with something really basic and just an obvious example that reaffirms what I have been saying in here. In undergraduate Finance education Modern Portfolio Theory is taught over and over again. Modern Portfolio theory state's that the risk of purchasing a stock is it's variance, or it's Beta. Is that true? I mean anyone with half a brain knows that is false.

Here is a common criticism that should take you about two seconds to realize is true-

"Despite its theoretical importance, critics of MPT question whether it is an ideal investment tool, because its model of financial markets does not match the real world in many ways.[3]"

Ok so why should I sit there and memorize this for your test in multiple different classes? This doesn't bring me any value because the theory itself is unequivocally false. Doing practice problems with theoretical examples of modern portfolio theory is a waste of time. So you cross it off and keep going. You don't sit there wasting your time studying/ memorizing debunked theories in multiple classes with different names. It is an over convolution of reality and trying to apply fancy statistics to human behavior.

It's garbage.

I was curious as to if your argument about MPT held water, so I ran it by a few of my close friends that work in finance.

Ok, source random "finance" friend. Got it, must be legit.

According to those who understand this topic

Implying I don't understand this topic.

you are mischaracterizing what risk is.

No I am not.

Beta is one of many ways to measure risk, but not the only way.

yeah, with all due respect, no shit? I am stating it within the context of the model. The primary measure of risk in CAPM is the beta coefficient which is the variance of the stock price relative to the market.


Also your point that 'Beta is one of many ways to measure risk therefore mpt is objectively false' is nonsense.

I didn't say the above, you did. Measuring a business's riskiness as the variance in which the business's stock price moves up and down compared to the market is complete nonsense as it doesn't look at what is happening with the actual business! If I had a trillion dollars and bought a bunch of Wal-mart stock is Wal-mart now riskier because it's stock price isn't relatively constant compared to the market? Walmart may now be riskier than it was simply because the price is higher, but not because it's volatility increased relative to the market.

Mainly your argument about the uselessness of MPT falls apart because a model can still be useful even if it does not exactly match the real world.

Dude you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If you want to have this discussion seriously go read this book and come back and I will talk to you about this when you are done. It's $8.00
http://www.amazon.com/Investments-8th-Z ... ane+marcus

In the mean time here is a convenient article that will tell you to not waste your time, like I already have, and like I am doing right now by continuing to talk about a debunked theory.
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2009/05 ... -theories/

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Let's start with something really basic and just an obvious example that reaffirms what I have been saying in here. In undergraduate Finance education Modern Portfolio Theory is taught over and over again. Modern Portfolio theory state's that the risk of purchasing a stock is it's variance, or it's Beta. Is that true? I mean anyone with half a brain knows that is false.

Here is a common criticism that should take you about two seconds to realize is true-

"Despite its theoretical importance, critics of MPT question whether it is an ideal investment tool, because its model of financial markets does not match the real world in many ways.[3]"

Ok so why should I sit there and memorize this for your test in multiple different classes? This doesn't bring me any value because the theory itself is unequivocally false. Doing practice problems with theoretical examples of modern portfolio theory is a waste of time. So you cross it off and keep going. You don't sit there wasting your time studying/ memorizing debunked theories in multiple classes with different names. It is an over convolution of reality and trying to apply fancy statistics to human behavior.

It's garbage.

I was curious as to if your argument about MPT held water, so I ran it by a few of my close friends that work in finance.

According to those who understand this topic, you are mischaracterizing what risk is.
Beta is one of many ways to measure risk, but not the only way.

Also your point that 'Beta is one of many ways to measure risk therefore mpt is objectively false' is nonsense.

Mainly your argument about the uselessness of MPT falls apart because a model can still be useful even if it does not exactly match the real world.

Also.... here is a review straight from Amazon.

Too much reliance on modern finance and efficient market hypothesis. This book teaches you investments in the sense of asset correlation optimization and volatility, but does not teach you at all how to do security valuation, analyze the firm's strategic position and management. It is just a book of Excel and security descriptions.

For example the academic staff at one of the top 50 business schools had remarked to me that they are teaching the stuff, but it really doesn't hold up I real life. But that they don't have a good substitute, so they continue to teach it.

It is very interesting to see how far we have come from the 1950’s through the 1990s with the dogmatic and unquestioned following of Markowitz, Sharpe, Modigliani, Miller, French & Fama......

[jnwa]

The fact that you, Buffett and Munger dont find value in something doesnt mean its worthless. The value of the theory is clearly contested, yet you seem to to be convinced that anyone who doesnt agree with you is stupid. I can disagree with trickle down economics or Keynesian economics and im sure there are large swaths of people who think those theories are bullshit but youre an idiot if you dont think contested theories have a place in the classroom. This isnt a 1+1=3 case, some people clearly find value in it. Even the article you posted shows that Buffett and Munger are going somewhat against the grain with their distaste for MPT and its ilk. The entire field of economics is full of assumptions about the real world that dont hold up. If your brain doesnt have enough space to handle multiple theories, go to trade school. Even then they might teach you multiple ways to fix a drain and youll combust.

[Burlington4174]

I applied on Jan31st with a 167 LSAT. I then received a 176 in February. So my stats are now 3.52, 176 with mediocre softs.

A combination of applying late and having the LSAT score change altered my cycle.

IN: UCLA, Vandy $$, Texas$$, WUSTL $$$,

WL: USC, GTown, Duke, Cornell, NU, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley.

I'm gonna apply again next cycle. Dreaming of Harvard but would be really happy with Columbia or Penn. As an aside, isn't it sad how no matter how well you do, you start looking down on your current situation and dreaming for better? When I got the 167, I would have been stoked to get into Northwestern or Cornell. Now I feel like Columbia is a given and I'm disappointed Harvard or Stanford aren't likely. Can't I just be happy with success 99.9 percent of others dream of? Why do i have to compare myself against HYS now. it's pathetic. End rant.

You're better off applying ED to NU than likely paying sticker or close to it at CCNP with those numbers if you're debt-financing.

Nah. If I don't get a butler at columbia, ill hopefully get duke money and go there.

You'll end up in the same place with way more debt but okay.

A six percent better chance at biglaw + fedclerk is probably worth $20,000.

[Hikikomorist]

Do away with grades, and replace them with more standardized tests. Make people take the GRE, LSAT, and GMAT for admission to any and every graduate program.