[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
Applied math is simple, compared to theoretical math. Very few people can succeed at it because it involves the creation of mathematics. The idea of "sets", for example, has been around less than 110 years. Applied mathematicians merely make deductions from what theoretical mathematicians have created. Ask Chris Ferguson, David Sklansky or Barry Greenstein if you don't believe me. Or read, 'A Mathematicians Apology' by G. H. Hardy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this.

It is true that there are extraordinarily few people who can become theoretical mathematicians, really understand a field, and make significant contributions to it. But it is not true that that necessarily makes applied mathematics less difficult.

One way to look at it is in terms of risk/reward. In theoretical math, the risk is to your time and somewhat to your relative reputation. It is very time-consuming to think up anything you can publish. If you do publish something with grandiose claims and it is wrong, then you suffer, but more likely your mistakes are caught by others way before you publish.

In applied mathematics the risk/reward is money and job security. Applied mathematicians are expected to devise solutions to real-world problems in a timely manner, problems that don't necessarily correspond to any blueprint problems available in the literature.

At the highest levels, for example academic fluid mechanicians consulting to aerospace, or on-the-trading-floor quants solving pricing problems on exotics in non-liquid markets (such as MBS) on-the-fly so that the traders can act while the market is hot, applied mathematics is extraordinarily difficult, and extremely well paid (up to $500/hr).