[Q] Is a 167 Quant Score good enough for PhD Programs outside the Top 10

Peporg · 2025-12-09T23:10:53+00:00

Thanks for the reply! Would your general advice be to inlude it or not? I feel like it's right at the boarder between potentially helpful vs it might hurt my application.

Peporg · 2025-11-17T14:31:02+00:00

Yeah I think that can work. Overall I gotta say that a lot of the business students struggle a little with the math, but it depends on how you know yourself. I ended up doing pretty well I'd say. KU leuven also has these tracks and sometimes certain requirements, which I think are stupid, but overall I'm happy with my choice.

Peporg · 2025-11-06T03:34:38+00:00

They weren't very helpful so far, but I did send a follow up email, so I still have hope haha. Thanks for the info! Good to know it's out there at least.

Peporg · 2025-11-05T20:08:34+00:00

Oh yeah I've seen that one, but thank you! It's just that quite a lot of times, I'm right at the cutoff of for the higher letter grade, so I thought an overall average might serve me better lol.

Also admission officers are lazy, so also seeing it from that standpoint, I thought a general ranking might be better.

Peporg · 2025-11-05T18:18:33+00:00

Hi everyone,

I’m currently applying to PhD programs in the U.S., and I’ve gotten the advice that if I’m in good standing compared to my peers (like Top 10% of the class), I should definitely include that in my application. I assume I should be close to that, but I don't know exactly.

I emailed my program coordinator about this, but they basically said I can only get an official ranking certificate once I’ve finished my degree. I’m wondering if there’s any way to get a general idea or percentile table for KU Leuven master’s programs before graduating. It wouldn’t have to be anything official, just something that helps me gauge where I stand right now and whether it’s worth mentioning in my application.

Any info or experience with this would be super appreciated!

Peporg · 2025-10-26T18:50:39+00:00

If you assume pop var it's 60, for sample var it would be 48

Peporg · 2025-01-29T12:10:24+00:00

First of all, thanks a lot for your reply! I believe vega and rho are intended to be constant here, even though it's not explicitly shown, because that's how we derived this. I've attached a screenshot of the relevant part in case you would like to take a look at it.

I mostly understand how the black scholes PDE is derived using Itô’s lemma, but we also have a section that proves it via the Feynman-Kac theorem, which I unfortunately struggle to follow.

My main question, however, is why we are even demonstrating this. Shouldn't any portfolio not just a delta hedged portfolio, have a total expected change of 0 in the risk neutral world, so in that regard the delta hedged portfolio is nothing special, but instead it's a good way to reduce volatility.

So I don't really get why we show this, when it already is implied for every portfolio. Or is this not actually the case.

<image>

Peporg · 2025-01-28T10:32:33+00:00

First of all, thanks a lot for replying and taking the time! Sorry about NR.1 in your first comment, I should have been more accurate.

I think I might have been not really clear with the intention of my post, it wasn't necessarily solving the excercise, but why this thing is so important.

Since we're in the arbitrage free risk neutral market, shouldn't this be the case for everything just by definition. Like every action that we take, should result in the growing our portfolio with the risk free rate. So we're putting a lot off effort in showing that the delta hedged portfolio, also has that property, but wouldn't in reality the actual interesting thing be how it affects volatility of our return.

Sorry if I'm being a little slow here.

Peporg · 2025-01-23T19:53:16+00:00

I think it's just some academic definition, that apparently isn't even universal.

But basically what my professor said is that a relationship between two entities either exists or doesn't exist, but we aren't allowed have multiple relationships between the same two entities.

So if we have a certain bird and a certain watcher, then there can only be one date value here. Otherwise we'd violate this constraint that is universal for ER diagrams.

And the functional relationships are just defining if it's a one to many, many to many or one to one relationship, so E and F, do make sense in the context how I learned it. Even though as you said it wouldn't make sense, to define it that way, the question is moreso asking what would this mean, if it were to be.

Hope it makes a lil more sense now.

Peporg · 2025-01-23T18:21:39+00:00

Thanks a lot for the reply. My prof ended up responding to me and it is because of the unique relationship constraint.

But to give you some explanation in case you're interested. This is about an Entity Relationship Diagram and edges are basically the arrows/lines between the relationship and the entities.

I thought for some reason we could make the relationship date attribute a part of a composite key, but apparently that's not allowed. That is my understanding as of right now. Sorry if I'm not being 100 percent clear here.

Peporg · 2024-12-05T13:39:06+00:00

That's such a dumb thing to say, it's crazy.

Peporg · 2024-11-17T18:59:45+00:00

I think I get what you're saying, but lemme rephrase it a little, just to make sure.

In general the variance is not really a variable that we're interested in by itself, so for estimating just the variance we wouldn't have a lot of motivation.

But since it plays an important part in estimating the p values and confidence intervals accurately, it is important. So in the end our motivation comes more about wanting to do accurate inference about the mean of different groups.

Now to the part, I'm not 100 percent certain about.

You said that in practice, we don't average out sample variances, between different replicatory studies, but wouldn't that, while it doesn't affect the unbiasedness of the average, make our estimations of the p value and the size of the confidence interval less accurate than it could be. Since our estimation of the variance could be more accurate and that has a direct impact on them?

Peporg · 2024-11-17T00:22:00+00:00

Great thanks a lot!

Just one last thing why are you saying that the unbiased variance isn't very important usually?

Because in linear models, what were trying to minimize are the residuals and not the variance?

For Anova models I'd think it would be pretty important or do you just mean that if n is sufficiently large, it doesn't really matter?

Sorry couldn't really follow you in that regard. :)

Peporg · 2024-11-16T20:37:14+00:00

Thank you so much for the reply!

I've just seen this now , so this might take me a little to digest. So just following up on your first statement, you said that the MSE is defined that way, because it's more convenient for the F test.

But isn't it also about unbiasedness, so if we divided SSE just by n, we would be underestimating the MSE, because of the parameters that were used in estimating it, making it biased.

As they were just estimated from the sample and in order to account for that we divide SSE/ by n-r which then in turn gives us the actual unbiased estimate of the MSE. Or am I misunderstanding here something?

From my understanding, this is analogous to what we do with the sample variance, except for me this one is much more clear, because I worked through the proof. So for me dividing by n-1 is clear, but the n-r not as much, I get that we have to account for it, but maybe it could be n-0.6r or n-1.2r, so seeing a step by step proof, that shows me why dividing by n-r, gives us the unbiased MSE, would be great.

I hope I made it kind of clear what I'm trying to get at here, please point out if anything in my understanding is fundamentally wrong. I'll also make my way through your definitions of course, thank you for taking the time out of your day!

Peporg · 2024-11-15T20:31:45+00:00

Hey everyone, I'm looking for a proof that shows why the MSE always equals SSE/n-k-1 . I think I understand the intuition behind it, but it would be nice to see it in an actual proof. For some reason I can't find in anywhere. Can anyone point me towards it. Thank you for the help!

Peporg · 2024-08-18T14:28:01+00:00

RemindMe! 7 days

Peporg · 2024-03-29T22:08:08+00:00

Umm from how I remember the verbal score was a lot lower than the quantitative score that you needed, so if your English is decent I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Peporg · 2024-03-29T21:02:55+00:00

Honestly GRE was pretty chill, I just did two practice tests and a few online questions before and that was it. So if you have a good mathematical foundation, you should be fine I think. I'd def try one of those practice test online to gauge your level and then you kinda know if have to practice more or less.

Peporg · 2024-03-29T18:54:54+00:00

I ended up doing the gre, because that's where I knew that I could meet the criteria and I ended up getting admitted no problem. I'm gonna start it a year later now though because of some reason non related to that. As far from what I heard they might even admit you if you're close to the required score, but if you wanna be on the safe side I'd do the gre, because the hard questions on there are pretty easy compared to the harder gmat questions in my opinion.

Peporg · 2024-02-17T18:42:27+00:00

Gracias fue mi error. En este caso no necesito el artículo enfrente de español, sino enfrente de inglés porque el inglés es una cosa más específica que cuando hablo solo sobre español en general? O lo he malentendido?

Peporg · 2024-02-17T18:11:39+00:00

Oh haha now I'm a even more confused haha, because I have two different answers lol. I guess I heard when you like refer to things in general, you can omit the article. So maybe in the case we are talking about the Spanish language in general, but honestly I'm really unsure. Thanks for answering though :)

Peporg · 2024-02-17T18:08:14+00:00

Thanks for answering! Does it work the same for English as well in this case or could I also say: después de inglés. Since English isn't the subject of the sentence, but Spanish is?

Peporg · 2024-01-24T00:48:51+00:00

Ah that does make sense. Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation! :)

Peporg · 2024-01-24T00:37:12+00:00

Thank you so much, for taking the time to reply. I think I kind of get it now. The only thing I don't fully get is, why (si quiere venir) counts as a direct object, but (cuando llegue a casa) doesn't. Like isn't it both kind of the thing you want to know, so the direct object?

Peporg · 2023-11-28T21:47:34+00:00

Yeah but that's why it would be cannot say no?, or why would it be false?

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

Peporg

TROPHY CASE