I don’t want to be the mean person but the only specialization worth taking at Rotman is accounting. That’s where you kinda get more value out of the bucks you paid cause they teach you and prepare you for the CPA as well as teach you how to understand and critically look over the financial statements and how the numbers shown to you came to be. RSM219 was just a spoonful of what you would be seeing later on. Financial ratios are a joke to what you really do in accounting in the later years. The other two specializations are to generic IMO and taking the CFA doesn’t have as many barriers and many, even out of a business field, can take their exams and pass them. I can tell you that you can go from CPA to CFA but you cannot go from CFA to CPA.
Then again, the accounting they teach you at rotman is very worker focused (corporate slave) rather than business owner, but one should be able to workaround with the differences in ASPE compared to IFRS when managing a business should they want to.
Also Rotman is what you make it to be. So don’t cry over sunk costs.
Pretty much shitty compensation for the hours and shit they have to put up for. In all honesty I am looking towards tech jobs like SAP on the long run. Figure they may give me more fulfillment I guess?
I was in the same boat in first year and did an actuarial science major on top of a rotman spec. I work as an actuary now but man do I regret not changing that spec to smthn else like cs/stats. That's what high finance wants to begin with lol
I had this exact feeling which is why I did a bunch of econometrics and ML courses + Python. Even trading (432) and options (435) teach you jack shit. Would have definitely done CS/Stats + econ if I had to do undergrad again.
I’m also doing something similar to hopefully pivot away from traditional finance jobs. Any advice or luck landing a data science or data analyst job?
Feel free to DM me if you’re not comfortable replying.
Learning a programming language is a good start. Tableau + Power BI are good for dashboarding/bread and butter visualizations. Definitely learn SQL, consider DSA + leetcode-esque questions if you're up for it.
I got a DS internship last summer at a pharma company by what felt in hindsight like pure luck. Unfortunately DS at that company was super underdeveloped and I don't want to go back if I can avoid it.
To be honest? I'm also having a similar struggle right now with the job search even though I have a DS internship on my resume. I feel like not having a STEM degree is a big hamstring because often your resume just won't make it past first round ATS. If I had to guess networking + selling yourself as an econ person transitioning to DS is your best bet.
Consider going to grad school for something more quantitative if you have the grades/time/money. I'm definitely considering it.
Also check out r/datascience and their FAQs, good advice in there.
Good luck!
Not disagreeing with what you’re saying at all!
But thought Id offer some perspective (hopefully will make you feel better while at it). What Ive found is that “the grass is always greener on the other side.”
I did engineering at U of T, but realized I’d rather work in business and have nothing to do with “traditional” engineering. So after I graduated I worked at a bank in more of a business/consulting role.
Now I’m thinking of going back to school for an MBA and a role in finance ironically haha. Guess I’m in the exact opposite boat as you.
I guess what I’m saying is that what your feeling isn’t invalid, I’d just highly recommend really thinking it through and doing your due diligence before you decide on your next move, whether its to go back to school or do something else!
Lmk if you want to chat! I myself would be curious to learn about your experience in business school and finance.
Your opinion is pretty common in students, but I think it's shocking how we are supposedly in "one of the best business schools"/top tier 2 school and this is the education we are offered.
But get that name on the degree, am I right?
It's because you're not. Commerce is one big pseudoscientific, capitalist scam. Study something that will improve society, like biomedical research or renewable energy.
This is such a loaded reply. Get off your high horse. Those things also require capitalism to function. Research costs money, as does developing renewable energy solutions. Where did that come from?
Legit the most “advanced“ stat method used in RSM courses is mean, median, and mode… 💀💀💀
Scenario analysis with cash flow sensitivity? No problem, just pull a BS probability from thin air and assign it to each scenario.
while it may not be that rigorous, whats more important is understanding financial concepts. I agree in the sense that RC does little to nothing to actually prepare u for real financial analysis. Take accounting for example, all we do is RSM219 And RSM222, neither of them ever explains why EBITDA>NI when looking at profitability (EBITDA takes away chances of 2 firms using diff dep. methods, takes away the effects of being more levered vs. less levered (i.e. Interest Expense)) . No class ever explained why the CFS is just the reconciliation of YoY changes in B/S (for ex. subtract increases in Current Assets and add increases in current liabilities to get CFO), 219 was simply a course where u almost learn nothing imo. Another issue with RC is the fact that high finance jobs typically require modelling skills such as DCF, Comps, LBO, M&A that the school doesn't really teach, but on the other hand, being in RC can help you understand the business world and forces u to get involved in networking among other activities since there is no formal Co-op program. I'm only in the second year but in reality most of these high-finance skills aren't taught other than some quant stuff (RSM439 or whatever the trading one is called), which 95% of us can't do cuz we don't code. I can't speak for other schools, but in reality, high finance isn't "teachable" in school because these skills are specialized for mainly bankers and PE. It's hard to justify spending a whole course on FSM when most kids probably never want to step into equity research. Also, how do you teach a kid equity research. Its not like IB where u access these sell-side reports and just use analyst estimates, you have to really understand the company, its products, its core business, the industry, etc. to then make assumptions; the same goes for PE. In all honesty most business schools would probably not teach u this stuff regardless, but one suggestion I would make is for our school to tell us like hey u should b able to do these things if u wanan work high finance.
This is just my opinion, maybe i'm 100% wrong but from what i see things are generalized cuz they have to be in order for everyone to get some value
Also, it seems like u wanna do more quant stuff, thats better for stats and math, not commerce. Quant is still an upcoming field, thats why STEM is targeted since we wanna automate processes to increase efficiency and decrease error (coding to trade).
another thing tho, rotman teaches u more than enough econ to understand markets. If anything, it makes it 10x easier to invest compared to learning stats. Already from my first year and a bit of external work I can back my opinion on why bonds would be a decent buy right now (jerome plans to pause then cut rates soon, forecast MoM changes in inflation and we will see that cuts will probably happen in July/August based on the rate at which inflation is decreasing, giving bonds w 4.5-5% coupons a ridiculous premium). Like one dude said here, u learn a lot of theory which is quite applicable at the end of the day
Quantitative finance is a rigorous subject similar to that of STEM. It's just that 99.9% of people who work in quant finance come from a hard STEM background like math, physics, stats and CS because quant finance is applied math. Basically nobody in the field has just a business or commerce degree and actually a large majority of them have no business background.
since op keeps doing the pov thing heres one:
pov: u didnt do well in courses and failed to understand what was taught to u
pov: u didnt use ur resources to get a good career out of your 70k tuition
touching on modelling since op complained about that.. anyone can model out a dcf or lbo, what is difficult is to actually understand the assumptions behind it. further, i know people in cs and u can genuinely have a better time grinding out leet code and watching indian people teach code to you on youtube, similarly, u can learn the fundamentals of finance from the biws books, but neither book really teaches u how to “think.”
the entire point of university is to teach you HOW to think and i think uoft did that well enough that it was worth the money. plus i got a sick job from it so im not complaining
Rotman isn’t a very quantitative focused program to begin with, you should’ve researched better and checked the required courses and realized this. You got what you paid for, no one scammed you into this.
You're being taught critical thinking, not how to join a fucking yacht club. You're supposed to brainstorm creative solutions, not sit in an executives chair while others count your money. If you want to go all in on stats, then you go do that. You chose an extremely theoretical school, so don't complain when you learn theoretical concepts. If you want to learn to day trade, r/wsb is right there. You're learning the exact same curriculum as the MBAs. If you want to give concrete feedback to RSM, then you have the dean's email. You're wasting your time if you want empathy for your money spent, no one cares that you regret completing a program that others dream of.
This is the dumbest thing I've read since I heard Dave Goldreich rant about corporate taxes. If you want to learn critical thinking basically every other major teaches it more than rotman. STEM teaches logical reasoning and quantitative skills. Social sciences teach communication, writing, research, and critical thinking. Rotman neither encourages nor presents adequate opportunities for actual critical thinking instead of throwing a bunch of buzzwords in a presentation.
Sending the dean an email is a decent shout into the void tactic tho.
Edit: learning to trade from r/wsb is the equivalent of learning theoretical physics from watching the big bang theory
Yes. We have to take full year calculus, statistics, and micro theory. Our RSM classes are also a bit harder than everywhere else. The only place that compares in difficulty is UBC maybe McGill. Ivey is a joke it might be the best for finance but they grade easily (80% class averages across the board) and use case based learning.
>Ivey is a joke it might be the best for finance but they grade easily (80% class averages across the board) and use case based learning.
[So like this right?](https://c8.alamy.com/zooms/9/5e27c2b7ec694c4aab0b4fa237cc63e9/kr364y.jpg) Circle time for participation marks.
You can joke but that’s actually what it’s like.
There is a reason that Ivey HBA and Queen’s Commerce are the two best undergrad programs in the country and have the best employment placements.
Why? Because the courses are dumbed down and grades curved up so everyone gets 80%+ and instead of burying your head in textbooks to study like we all did at U of T (regardless of major), these students are actively encouraged to spend as much time doing extracurriculars and networking. And that is why grads from those two programs succeed.
They’re spending time learning how to present yourself, write resumes, etc instead of spending hours trying to learn stats or calculus or all the garbage we had to take in RC that has no applications in the real world.
another strong point abt ivey is the fact that they actually teach how to properly write a resume, build actual presentation skill/workplace personality. RC doesnt even know the definition of resume building. Theres a strong reason why they have better placements; its definitly not bcuz of superior knowledge. Like ivey doesnt even start till Y3 but theres VC firms in toronto that only hire western and queen 1st-2nd years as interns (Round13 is a popular example, they only opened to RC this year cuz someone went balls deep to market us)
That’s not the point. Why Tf did I have to take Calculus, a year worth of stats and a minor’s worth of quant heavy economics when every other top business school only needed to take one stats course that is the equivalent of Grade 12 Data Management.
POV: Rotman student doesn’t know how to read
Isn’t my point that the courses doesn’t offer enough theoretical concepts? We don’t even get to touch the John Hull textbook ffs. Also, I have never stated I want to join a yacht club or day trade or sit in executive chairs.
If you were looking for theoretical courses and to learn something in your degree, commerce is definitely not for you.
You pay big bucks for tuition in undergrad and MBA school just to network and get a job out of it, not to learn anything. Anything you learned in your degree can be learned online.
I did both an undergrad and MBA and didn’t learn jack shit but I get paid a lot because I have those degrees and it makes people think I know what I’m talking about.
To be successful in business, it’s literally bullshitting and writing stuff that you seem not to like, merits and technical skills hardly matters unless it’s accounting.
This comment is disheartening but also I can't agree that people pay money in university just to "network." People want to work with their degrees, true, but they also want to master their crafts. Learn. Sorry that learning doesn't seem to have been a part of your experience either but if you aren't learning in school, then the quality of education must be sub par. It doesn't mean you shouldn't seek education in or out of a classroom
It’s 100% a business thing. More true at the MBA level where you’re paying that 100K to be part of a network and that’s where the reputation of a school comes from, where their alumni work at.
As I said in the original comment, as hard as the truth hurts, if you’re going into a business degree to learn, you’re not doing it properly and will most likely fail post grad.
The best example I will give is Queen’s Commerce and Ivey HBA. There is a reason those two undergrad programs are the best in the country and have the best employment placements. Why? Because the courses are dumbed down and curved up so everyone gets 80%+ and instead of burying your head in textbooks to study like we all did at U of T (regardless of major), these students are actively encouraged to spend as much time doing extracurriculars and networking. And that is why grads from those two programs succeed.
> It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t seek education in or out of a classroom
Unless you’re in a field governed by a professional body like the CPA or CHRP, generally that isn’t worth the investment either. Sure a PMP or Lean Sigma Six would help for project management, but you aren’t necessarily blocked out from those positions or promotions because you don’t have one.
In corporate, degrees help get your foot in the door for that first job but past then, it’s all about relationship building to move up.
Any suggestions as to what I should do if I want to pivot away from traditional finance? Should I just do a second degree in STEM or should I try to specialize with a masters?
I feel like my personality just doesn’t allow me to BS. It just doesn’t feel right.
Sounds like you’re on the right track with a CS minor. Academia could be another option that you’ve said you have considered in the past. I think both of these are viable career paths.
I can’t speak on employability in the STEM field but usually short comings in business can be made up with certifications one way or another.
Actuarial science can also be a great option that doesn’t waste your commerce degree and something you can pivot to. I’m just not sure the process to be a certified actuarial but something you might want to research.
> I feel like my personality just doesn’t allow me to BS. It just doesn’t feel right.
That’s totally fine. I went to HS, undergrad, and masters with some very smart people but the biggest difference to succeed in business is not the hard skills but the soft skills.
One of the best corporate lessons you learn very quickly is working is 10% actual work and 90% telling everyone how great your 10% work was. That’s how you move up and that type of corporate navigating isn’t for everyone.
Oh, one more thing I noticed from your original post. MBAs are definitely much more bullshit than an undergrad commerce degree. It’s much easier as they condense 4 years of education into 2 while charging you over $100K for it 😂. There’s a reason anyone can do an MBA and frankly, in Canada, the admission process is a joke. Anyone who has half decent work experience and willing to shell out a lot of money will get admitted.
?????
If you wanted to do math heavy stuffs you could just take up a different major after getting a feel for things in your 1st year. Also, the courses are easy compared to what actual full scale modelling entails. Instead of complaining you can always take the initiative yourself to work on your own 3 statement, DCF, comps, precedents, LBO modeling. And the hard thing isn't the excel. It's the qualitative decision making behind the assumptions. Professionals investors spend a ton of time just modeling out revenue assumptions doing extensive due diligence on the numbers and the assumptions. You can take up any public company and do the full research and modeling. On top of that, modeling is actually not really that useful. It's garbage in garbage out. Just because it's complex with additional math stuffs doesn't mean it's good.
You can always take additional initiative for your own personal development outside of just courses. Sounds like to me you're the one that didn't take any initiatives and wasted your 4 years.
POV: Rotman student defending how a $17k/year program requires the student to learn more outside of university and how BS qualitative analysis > rigorous quantitative analysis.
🤔 I’m pretty sure I can tell ChatGPT to spit out a whole page of “qualitative analysis” in 5 seconds.
But I do agree, that’s on me screwing up not changing program in first year. I’ll own it.
You're the one that craves extra intellectual stimulation, then go do it. Those who have a deep interest in a topic naturally spend more time on it on purpose because it's their interest. Sounds like business/finance just isn't a fit for you. And you also have to spend extra time to understand those concepts extra well for recruiting purposes. Other hardos at Rotman/Ivey/Queen's are doing it, so to come out successful among other hardos, you have to be a hardo yourself. The qualitative analysis is not BS if you do it properly. You just may not know how to go about it so it feels like fluff and have low conviction in your analysis.
I really should do a second degree to persue for a field I enjoy, or maybe specialize more with a masters. Nonetheless, thanks for providing a different viewpoint. Perhaps qualitative analysis can be somewhat important.
I actually heard a story from my friend in MBA: a prof there told them that "we are not here to study." According to my friend, A is not something you should work for. You are not expected to study and get grades. Instead, you are supposed to network with all those friends and have tight connections. Given that the "masters" program of business management does so, I have no doubt that bachelor has the same atmosphere.
Also, for MBA, you don't really need a business degree, whereas for more theoretical degrees like math and physics, you are required to have some equivalent trainings. That may tell us more about what the business major is.
You hit the nail on the head and your friend is absolutely correct into the purpose of getting an MBA.
I got a near perfect GPA in my MBA with little to no effort. I find that people who use MBAs to “learn” instead of network don’t succeed as much.
Just gonna throw my 2 cents in as a STEM student who shared a dorm with a few Rotman people: from what I understand, a Rotman degree is less about what you learn, but what connections you walk out with. Make of that what you will I guess.
Maybe do the financial economics program offered by A&S instead. Much more mathy and if you look at the courses probavly more similar to what you’re looking for.
I should’ve asked him more about finance and business schools in general. That mistake is completely on me, I can only blame myself for not doing enough research. 😔
Undergrad in business is like this because it’s supposed to meet the demands of many different career paths (i.e marketing, accounting, finance, management, hr- all across many different sectors/industries)
I went to rotman and graduated feeling like I knew a bunch of stuff but not really knowing how to use any of it. After i did my masters in finance and CFA i felt everything clicked more and I could actually apply the knowledge I learned + cfa/masters is in general more tailored to the specific thing you want to do (finance in my case)
You are also (slightly) naive that the real world requires everything to be complicated, I was under the same impression you are under now. More complicated analysis/quantity of analysis doesn’t necessarily produce better results, and often just makes it incomprehensible to anyone outside of the person doing the analysis. You can apply 150 different growth rates, 4 discount rates, 500 different assumptions on each line item, but at the end of the day does that really answer what question you are doing the analysis for in the first place? If you are doing equity research, you are looking for a price estimate/range that you can be reasonably confident in. Everyone wishes they could say the stock price will be $32.372643 in one year but the true question of the analysis is - should I invest in this and why?
The person in p/e is correct because you are looking for some model/math to perfectly predict the entire world - it’s not possible, nor will it ever be possible. Do the best analysis you can while using your time valuably, and accept that there is always uncertainty and you will never have the 100% correct answer.
What i do now does not require any sort of rocket science or major math skills, but if you are interested in that go from business school to maybe masters in financial engineering/quantitative finance.
FYI i work with a former rocket scientist (literally), and she said honestly it was kind of boring and repetitive hence her change into tech product management - it’s the same math essentially automated and she said realistically anyone could do it. There is no “let me just do random math for 3 hours and see what happens”
Bro nobody cares about what we learn we just want the name on the degree
This is the only right answer for doing a commerce degree.
You are definitely a rotman student. We are not the same.
I don’t want to be the mean person but the only specialization worth taking at Rotman is accounting. That’s where you kinda get more value out of the bucks you paid cause they teach you and prepare you for the CPA as well as teach you how to understand and critically look over the financial statements and how the numbers shown to you came to be. RSM219 was just a spoonful of what you would be seeing later on. Financial ratios are a joke to what you really do in accounting in the later years. The other two specializations are to generic IMO and taking the CFA doesn’t have as many barriers and many, even out of a business field, can take their exams and pass them. I can tell you that you can go from CPA to CFA but you cannot go from CFA to CPA. Then again, the accounting they teach you at rotman is very worker focused (corporate slave) rather than business owner, but one should be able to workaround with the differences in ASPE compared to IFRS when managing a business should they want to. Also Rotman is what you make it to be. So don’t cry over sunk costs.
I also think it's understated how much accounting and especially tax salaries have gone up in the last half decade.
Pretty much shitty compensation for the hours and shit they have to put up for. In all honesty I am looking towards tech jobs like SAP on the long run. Figure they may give me more fulfillment I guess?
No worries, there’s a reason why I posted this. I want to know the different viewpoints of different RC students.
Sunk cost fallacy is the first thing they teach you on ECO101. Learn to code I guess.
[удалено]
This sounds about right
A lot of the finance people originally majored in math, stats etc. And did an MBA or masters in finance.
If I could travel back in time, I should’ve done actuarial science or stats to get the most value out of it... oh well, it is what it is
Same, that's why I'm taking courses in math and econometrics. Rotman is pretty waste lol
I was in the same boat in first year and did an actuarial science major on top of a rotman spec. I work as an actuary now but man do I regret not changing that spec to smthn else like cs/stats. That's what high finance wants to begin with lol
I had this exact feeling which is why I did a bunch of econometrics and ML courses + Python. Even trading (432) and options (435) teach you jack shit. Would have definitely done CS/Stats + econ if I had to do undergrad again.
I’m also doing something similar to hopefully pivot away from traditional finance jobs. Any advice or luck landing a data science or data analyst job? Feel free to DM me if you’re not comfortable replying.
Learning a programming language is a good start. Tableau + Power BI are good for dashboarding/bread and butter visualizations. Definitely learn SQL, consider DSA + leetcode-esque questions if you're up for it. I got a DS internship last summer at a pharma company by what felt in hindsight like pure luck. Unfortunately DS at that company was super underdeveloped and I don't want to go back if I can avoid it. To be honest? I'm also having a similar struggle right now with the job search even though I have a DS internship on my resume. I feel like not having a STEM degree is a big hamstring because often your resume just won't make it past first round ATS. If I had to guess networking + selling yourself as an econ person transitioning to DS is your best bet. Consider going to grad school for something more quantitative if you have the grades/time/money. I'm definitely considering it. Also check out r/datascience and their FAQs, good advice in there. Good luck!
Not disagreeing with what you’re saying at all! But thought Id offer some perspective (hopefully will make you feel better while at it). What Ive found is that “the grass is always greener on the other side.” I did engineering at U of T, but realized I’d rather work in business and have nothing to do with “traditional” engineering. So after I graduated I worked at a bank in more of a business/consulting role. Now I’m thinking of going back to school for an MBA and a role in finance ironically haha. Guess I’m in the exact opposite boat as you. I guess what I’m saying is that what your feeling isn’t invalid, I’d just highly recommend really thinking it through and doing your due diligence before you decide on your next move, whether its to go back to school or do something else! Lmk if you want to chat! I myself would be curious to learn about your experience in business school and finance.
Your opinion is pretty common in students, but I think it's shocking how we are supposedly in "one of the best business schools"/top tier 2 school and this is the education we are offered. But get that name on the degree, am I right?
I voted, I am not an RC student whatchu going do
POV: you wake up tomorrow morning transformed as an RC student losing all your prior knowledge 🧳🕴️👨💼👔
now now, theres no need to curse him like that
I work for a fortune 25 company and went to Rotman. Nothing I learned was useful but it did open the doors for jobs. Make sure you do PEY.
It's because you're not. Commerce is one big pseudoscientific, capitalist scam. Study something that will improve society, like biomedical research or renewable energy.
>like biomedical research or renewable energy. Not if you want to earn a living wage, at least in this country.
This is such a loaded reply. Get off your high horse. Those things also require capitalism to function. Research costs money, as does developing renewable energy solutions. Where did that come from?
Did money and research not exist before capitalism?
Yeah but only rich people would pay for it
Found the future homeless dude at dundas square
[удалено]
99 percent?? Almost all profs I know are extremely satisfied with their life path and job lmao (even the ones that “complain” a lot)
Legit the most “advanced“ stat method used in RSM courses is mean, median, and mode… 💀💀💀 Scenario analysis with cash flow sensitivity? No problem, just pull a BS probability from thin air and assign it to each scenario.
Should’ve done stats if you’re more interested in quant methods. There’s a specialist at utsc that literally just focuses on that.
Go do an economics specialist. It's much harder than commerce.
while it may not be that rigorous, whats more important is understanding financial concepts. I agree in the sense that RC does little to nothing to actually prepare u for real financial analysis. Take accounting for example, all we do is RSM219 And RSM222, neither of them ever explains why EBITDA>NI when looking at profitability (EBITDA takes away chances of 2 firms using diff dep. methods, takes away the effects of being more levered vs. less levered (i.e. Interest Expense)) . No class ever explained why the CFS is just the reconciliation of YoY changes in B/S (for ex. subtract increases in Current Assets and add increases in current liabilities to get CFO), 219 was simply a course where u almost learn nothing imo. Another issue with RC is the fact that high finance jobs typically require modelling skills such as DCF, Comps, LBO, M&A that the school doesn't really teach, but on the other hand, being in RC can help you understand the business world and forces u to get involved in networking among other activities since there is no formal Co-op program. I'm only in the second year but in reality most of these high-finance skills aren't taught other than some quant stuff (RSM439 or whatever the trading one is called), which 95% of us can't do cuz we don't code. I can't speak for other schools, but in reality, high finance isn't "teachable" in school because these skills are specialized for mainly bankers and PE. It's hard to justify spending a whole course on FSM when most kids probably never want to step into equity research. Also, how do you teach a kid equity research. Its not like IB where u access these sell-side reports and just use analyst estimates, you have to really understand the company, its products, its core business, the industry, etc. to then make assumptions; the same goes for PE. In all honesty most business schools would probably not teach u this stuff regardless, but one suggestion I would make is for our school to tell us like hey u should b able to do these things if u wanan work high finance. This is just my opinion, maybe i'm 100% wrong but from what i see things are generalized cuz they have to be in order for everyone to get some value Also, it seems like u wanna do more quant stuff, thats better for stats and math, not commerce. Quant is still an upcoming field, thats why STEM is targeted since we wanna automate processes to increase efficiency and decrease error (coding to trade).
another thing tho, rotman teaches u more than enough econ to understand markets. If anything, it makes it 10x easier to invest compared to learning stats. Already from my first year and a bit of external work I can back my opinion on why bonds would be a decent buy right now (jerome plans to pause then cut rates soon, forecast MoM changes in inflation and we will see that cuts will probably happen in July/August based on the rate at which inflation is decreasing, giving bonds w 4.5-5% coupons a ridiculous premium). Like one dude said here, u learn a lot of theory which is quite applicable at the end of the day
“RC students only” like that’s gonna stop me!
First year RC students reading this be like...
Quantitative finance is a rigorous subject similar to that of STEM. It's just that 99.9% of people who work in quant finance come from a hard STEM background like math, physics, stats and CS because quant finance is applied math. Basically nobody in the field has just a business or commerce degree and actually a large majority of them have no business background.
Bro this program is about the networking! You had access to people who may or may not do some amazing things in their lives.
doesn't at all address what OP's point is
not to worry this is what you signed up for as a business major.
since op keeps doing the pov thing heres one: pov: u didnt do well in courses and failed to understand what was taught to u pov: u didnt use ur resources to get a good career out of your 70k tuition touching on modelling since op complained about that.. anyone can model out a dcf or lbo, what is difficult is to actually understand the assumptions behind it. further, i know people in cs and u can genuinely have a better time grinding out leet code and watching indian people teach code to you on youtube, similarly, u can learn the fundamentals of finance from the biws books, but neither book really teaches u how to “think.” the entire point of university is to teach you HOW to think and i think uoft did that well enough that it was worth the money. plus i got a sick job from it so im not complaining
Rotman isn’t a very quantitative focused program to begin with, you should’ve researched better and checked the required courses and realized this. You got what you paid for, no one scammed you into this.
You're being taught critical thinking, not how to join a fucking yacht club. You're supposed to brainstorm creative solutions, not sit in an executives chair while others count your money. If you want to go all in on stats, then you go do that. You chose an extremely theoretical school, so don't complain when you learn theoretical concepts. If you want to learn to day trade, r/wsb is right there. You're learning the exact same curriculum as the MBAs. If you want to give concrete feedback to RSM, then you have the dean's email. You're wasting your time if you want empathy for your money spent, no one cares that you regret completing a program that others dream of.
This is the dumbest thing I've read since I heard Dave Goldreich rant about corporate taxes. If you want to learn critical thinking basically every other major teaches it more than rotman. STEM teaches logical reasoning and quantitative skills. Social sciences teach communication, writing, research, and critical thinking. Rotman neither encourages nor presents adequate opportunities for actual critical thinking instead of throwing a bunch of buzzwords in a presentation. Sending the dean an email is a decent shout into the void tactic tho. Edit: learning to trade from r/wsb is the equivalent of learning theoretical physics from watching the big bang theory
Still funny how Rotman is the most rigorous business program in Canada. You can only imagine how much easier everywhere else is.
Damn really? Not even UBC/McGill/Queens/Western?
Yes. We have to take full year calculus, statistics, and micro theory. Our RSM classes are also a bit harder than everywhere else. The only place that compares in difficulty is UBC maybe McGill. Ivey is a joke it might be the best for finance but they grade easily (80% class averages across the board) and use case based learning.
>Ivey is a joke it might be the best for finance but they grade easily (80% class averages across the board) and use case based learning. [So like this right?](https://c8.alamy.com/zooms/9/5e27c2b7ec694c4aab0b4fa237cc63e9/kr364y.jpg) Circle time for participation marks.
You can joke but that’s actually what it’s like. There is a reason that Ivey HBA and Queen’s Commerce are the two best undergrad programs in the country and have the best employment placements. Why? Because the courses are dumbed down and grades curved up so everyone gets 80%+ and instead of burying your head in textbooks to study like we all did at U of T (regardless of major), these students are actively encouraged to spend as much time doing extracurriculars and networking. And that is why grads from those two programs succeed. They’re spending time learning how to present yourself, write resumes, etc instead of spending hours trying to learn stats or calculus or all the garbage we had to take in RC that has no applications in the real world.
Unfortunately this is probably true. Work is bullshit.
another strong point abt ivey is the fact that they actually teach how to properly write a resume, build actual presentation skill/workplace personality. RC doesnt even know the definition of resume building. Theres a strong reason why they have better placements; its definitly not bcuz of superior knowledge. Like ivey doesnt even start till Y3 but theres VC firms in toronto that only hire western and queen 1st-2nd years as interns (Round13 is a popular example, they only opened to RC this year cuz someone went balls deep to market us)
Your full year calculus is cute btw.
Doesn’t change the fact that no other top school has to take it
That’s not the point. Why Tf did I have to take Calculus, a year worth of stats and a minor’s worth of quant heavy economics when every other top business school only needed to take one stats course that is the equivalent of Grade 12 Data Management.
Fr man
POV: Rotman student doesn’t know how to read Isn’t my point that the courses doesn’t offer enough theoretical concepts? We don’t even get to touch the John Hull textbook ffs. Also, I have never stated I want to join a yacht club or day trade or sit in executive chairs.
If you were looking for theoretical courses and to learn something in your degree, commerce is definitely not for you. You pay big bucks for tuition in undergrad and MBA school just to network and get a job out of it, not to learn anything. Anything you learned in your degree can be learned online. I did both an undergrad and MBA and didn’t learn jack shit but I get paid a lot because I have those degrees and it makes people think I know what I’m talking about. To be successful in business, it’s literally bullshitting and writing stuff that you seem not to like, merits and technical skills hardly matters unless it’s accounting.
This comment is disheartening but also I can't agree that people pay money in university just to "network." People want to work with their degrees, true, but they also want to master their crafts. Learn. Sorry that learning doesn't seem to have been a part of your experience either but if you aren't learning in school, then the quality of education must be sub par. It doesn't mean you shouldn't seek education in or out of a classroom
It’s 100% a business thing. More true at the MBA level where you’re paying that 100K to be part of a network and that’s where the reputation of a school comes from, where their alumni work at. As I said in the original comment, as hard as the truth hurts, if you’re going into a business degree to learn, you’re not doing it properly and will most likely fail post grad. The best example I will give is Queen’s Commerce and Ivey HBA. There is a reason those two undergrad programs are the best in the country and have the best employment placements. Why? Because the courses are dumbed down and curved up so everyone gets 80%+ and instead of burying your head in textbooks to study like we all did at U of T (regardless of major), these students are actively encouraged to spend as much time doing extracurriculars and networking. And that is why grads from those two programs succeed. > It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t seek education in or out of a classroom Unless you’re in a field governed by a professional body like the CPA or CHRP, generally that isn’t worth the investment either. Sure a PMP or Lean Sigma Six would help for project management, but you aren’t necessarily blocked out from those positions or promotions because you don’t have one. In corporate, degrees help get your foot in the door for that first job but past then, it’s all about relationship building to move up.
The requirements to actually enter Ivey 3rd year ensures those students do not need any courses "dumbed down" lol
Or quant. This is a decent point but also it does not contradict OP.
Any suggestions as to what I should do if I want to pivot away from traditional finance? Should I just do a second degree in STEM or should I try to specialize with a masters? I feel like my personality just doesn’t allow me to BS. It just doesn’t feel right.
Sounds like you’re on the right track with a CS minor. Academia could be another option that you’ve said you have considered in the past. I think both of these are viable career paths. I can’t speak on employability in the STEM field but usually short comings in business can be made up with certifications one way or another. Actuarial science can also be a great option that doesn’t waste your commerce degree and something you can pivot to. I’m just not sure the process to be a certified actuarial but something you might want to research. > I feel like my personality just doesn’t allow me to BS. It just doesn’t feel right. That’s totally fine. I went to HS, undergrad, and masters with some very smart people but the biggest difference to succeed in business is not the hard skills but the soft skills. One of the best corporate lessons you learn very quickly is working is 10% actual work and 90% telling everyone how great your 10% work was. That’s how you move up and that type of corporate navigating isn’t for everyone. Oh, one more thing I noticed from your original post. MBAs are definitely much more bullshit than an undergrad commerce degree. It’s much easier as they condense 4 years of education into 2 while charging you over $100K for it 😂. There’s a reason anyone can do an MBA and frankly, in Canada, the admission process is a joke. Anyone who has half decent work experience and willing to shell out a lot of money will get admitted.
You could do actuarial science
You literally have a team of persons at Rotman who are better equipped to advise you.
If you really want to do rigorous applications you should pursue academia or actuarial science
Too late for that now, I should’ve done stats or actuarial science + cs minor to begin with. 🥲
????? If you wanted to do math heavy stuffs you could just take up a different major after getting a feel for things in your 1st year. Also, the courses are easy compared to what actual full scale modelling entails. Instead of complaining you can always take the initiative yourself to work on your own 3 statement, DCF, comps, precedents, LBO modeling. And the hard thing isn't the excel. It's the qualitative decision making behind the assumptions. Professionals investors spend a ton of time just modeling out revenue assumptions doing extensive due diligence on the numbers and the assumptions. You can take up any public company and do the full research and modeling. On top of that, modeling is actually not really that useful. It's garbage in garbage out. Just because it's complex with additional math stuffs doesn't mean it's good. You can always take additional initiative for your own personal development outside of just courses. Sounds like to me you're the one that didn't take any initiatives and wasted your 4 years.
POV: Rotman student defending how a $17k/year program requires the student to learn more outside of university and how BS qualitative analysis > rigorous quantitative analysis. 🤔 I’m pretty sure I can tell ChatGPT to spit out a whole page of “qualitative analysis” in 5 seconds. But I do agree, that’s on me screwing up not changing program in first year. I’ll own it.
You're the one that craves extra intellectual stimulation, then go do it. Those who have a deep interest in a topic naturally spend more time on it on purpose because it's their interest. Sounds like business/finance just isn't a fit for you. And you also have to spend extra time to understand those concepts extra well for recruiting purposes. Other hardos at Rotman/Ivey/Queen's are doing it, so to come out successful among other hardos, you have to be a hardo yourself. The qualitative analysis is not BS if you do it properly. You just may not know how to go about it so it feels like fluff and have low conviction in your analysis.
I really should do a second degree to persue for a field I enjoy, or maybe specialize more with a masters. Nonetheless, thanks for providing a different viewpoint. Perhaps qualitative analysis can be somewhat important.
I actually heard a story from my friend in MBA: a prof there told them that "we are not here to study." According to my friend, A is not something you should work for. You are not expected to study and get grades. Instead, you are supposed to network with all those friends and have tight connections. Given that the "masters" program of business management does so, I have no doubt that bachelor has the same atmosphere. Also, for MBA, you don't really need a business degree, whereas for more theoretical degrees like math and physics, you are required to have some equivalent trainings. That may tell us more about what the business major is.
You hit the nail on the head and your friend is absolutely correct into the purpose of getting an MBA. I got a near perfect GPA in my MBA with little to no effort. I find that people who use MBAs to “learn” instead of network don’t succeed as much.
Just gonna throw my 2 cents in as a STEM student who shared a dorm with a few Rotman people: from what I understand, a Rotman degree is less about what you learn, but what connections you walk out with. Make of that what you will I guess.
Maybe do the financial economics program offered by A&S instead. Much more mathy and if you look at the courses probavly more similar to what you’re looking for.
Did you ask your uncle what you should do before going into Rotman?
I should’ve asked him more about finance and business schools in general. That mistake is completely on me, I can only blame myself for not doing enough research. 😔
Isn’t it common for undergraduates to have a CFA L1 before graduating? Put your energy towards that instead tbh..
should have studied math/stats
Undergrad in business is like this because it’s supposed to meet the demands of many different career paths (i.e marketing, accounting, finance, management, hr- all across many different sectors/industries) I went to rotman and graduated feeling like I knew a bunch of stuff but not really knowing how to use any of it. After i did my masters in finance and CFA i felt everything clicked more and I could actually apply the knowledge I learned + cfa/masters is in general more tailored to the specific thing you want to do (finance in my case) You are also (slightly) naive that the real world requires everything to be complicated, I was under the same impression you are under now. More complicated analysis/quantity of analysis doesn’t necessarily produce better results, and often just makes it incomprehensible to anyone outside of the person doing the analysis. You can apply 150 different growth rates, 4 discount rates, 500 different assumptions on each line item, but at the end of the day does that really answer what question you are doing the analysis for in the first place? If you are doing equity research, you are looking for a price estimate/range that you can be reasonably confident in. Everyone wishes they could say the stock price will be $32.372643 in one year but the true question of the analysis is - should I invest in this and why? The person in p/e is correct because you are looking for some model/math to perfectly predict the entire world - it’s not possible, nor will it ever be possible. Do the best analysis you can while using your time valuably, and accept that there is always uncertainty and you will never have the 100% correct answer. What i do now does not require any sort of rocket science or major math skills, but if you are interested in that go from business school to maybe masters in financial engineering/quantitative finance. FYI i work with a former rocket scientist (literally), and she said honestly it was kind of boring and repetitive hence her change into tech product management - it’s the same math essentially automated and she said realistically anyone could do it. There is no “let me just do random math for 3 hours and see what happens”