is this the caliber of our future bankers? I worry for our future...

[Deleted]

i just finished watching a gameshow on national television, "Blokken" ( or "Blocks" in English). for the 18th anniversary of the show, they invited 2 people who were exactly 18 years old. both studied Latin in high school, both were going to College to study Economics and both liked to dance in their spare time.

so, the second round is there. they both get the same 5 themes with 1 question each and can choose in what order they're asked, with later questions being worth more points (actually, it's slightly more complicated than that. the show has a Tetris-like minigame, and the first question is worth 1 block, the second 2, the 3rd 3 and so on. a line is worth 50 points. contestants are quizzed separately, and the second contestant can't hear the first one answer, so the questions and answers remain secret.)

one of the themes is "seasonal sales". the question is "if a salesman gives a 33% price reduction, how much do you need to pay for a 100 EUR pair of jeans if you get that 33% reduction?" You don't need to account for taxes or service fees or anything like that, just reduce 100 by 33%. there are no numbers behind the comma, so 33% of 100 is 33, substract that from 100 and you get 67. the first contestant, who kept the question till last immediately replies... 66. she then spots her answer and corrects to 67. however, the first answer is the correct one and she's granted no points.

then the second contestant enters. she also keeps the question till last. she thinks a moment and then confidently replies... 77!

so these are both first-graders economics. a math-heavy subject with emphasis on percentages and such. and neither can work out a simple percentage equation that even a 5th grader should be able to answer.

am i wrong to be worried for our future bankers?

[artemishunter1]

banking with people will evantually go extinct like every other profession due to technology. Supercomputers working like auction houses does in wow. Except it would use the internet to decide exchange rates, interest rates etc., thus removing the middle man, since its a computer does not need profit.

[chazus]

I'd much rather have dumb bankers who can't do math, than the bankers we have now who are ridiculously good at legal theft.

[Pendulous]

So, what exactly? The first answer is wrong, but an understandable mistake. 33% is considered to be one-third, and two-thirds is 66% (6.66666.... but still). And these are two people on a game show, where they're under a lot of pressure. The only thing you can take away from this at all, is two people on a game show failed.

[Raphtheone]

So, what exactly? The first answer is wrong, but an understandable mistake. 33% is considered to be one-third, and two-thirds is 66% (6.66666.... but still).

33% of 100 is 33. Double it, and it's 66 (or 66,000000000..... to clarify). Add those together, and you get 99 (and not 100). 33% is not equal to 1/3. This is base 10 math, where one number is not equal to another. I cna understand that the person in the game show answered 66 due to the stressful situation of being on television, but here on the forums? Come on.

[Dendrek]

33% of 100 is 33. Double it, and it's 66 (or 66,000000000..... to clarify). Add those together, and you get 99 (and not 100). 33% is not equal to 1/3. This is base 10 math, where one number is not equal to another. I cna understand that the person in the game show answered 66 due to the stressful situation of being on television, but here on the forums? Come on.

You're being condescending and yet, I suppose ironically, you are the one mistaken here. What he said was correct if not taken out of context. He said "33% is considered to be one-third." It's obviously not one-third and he knows this. He was talking about the impression one might get when they first see the question, which would result in a bad answer if not thoroughly considered. He was arguing that, under stress, a person might easily make that mistake.

[Edited] For grammar.

[sinisterwyvern]

I would have said $66.66 and been done with it

[Deleted]

the problem i'm having is not that they have such a simple question wrong, but that they are both enrolling in a course involving heavy math where such a question is so simple it's considered futile. if they can't even calculate the price of a product with a 33% reduction, how will they be able to handle the more advanced mathematical questions of the course? they're studying economy, the thing that's going to shit right now, and they're the ones supposed to prevent it from doing that.