<p>@jwest22: You can argue that the FIRE industries are overgrown. Also that consultants straight out of college (and thus without deep industry experience) are fairly useless.</p>
<p>Unlike some people here, I have no problem with people making money (and I don’t understand why those people care if kids go in to consulting or banking for whatever reason), but you’re close to the Blankfein line of saying they’re doing God’s work, which, c’mon, that’s fooling yourself.</p>
<p>“but you’re close to the Blankfein line of saying they’re doing God’s work, which, c’mon, that’s fooling yourself.”</p>
<p>Nope. Only you made that exxageration (which is inherently the problem). I called it for exactly what it is. </p>
<p>While I don’t think finance or consulting is God’s work, exactly, I don’t think it’s morally inferior to, say, engineering or computer science.</p>
<p>Jwest22: Sorry, but you really seem to have an incomplete understanding of these industries. No, there’s actually no “need” for IBankers to bring about IPOs. The auction method would also work. There’s no “need” for outside consultants fresh out of college. A seasoned in-house staff would work just fine. There is a need for pension managers, but not that many, actually (and no one straight out of college is managing pensions).</p>
<p>BTW, implicit in this discussion is the assumption that analysts in finance and consulting get paid well when the reality is that on a per-hour basis, they don’t make a whole lot (and that’s including bonuses) compared to computer scientists and engineers.</p>
<p>Agreed, but why only focus on a couple of generally well-paying industries? That is the point of the article–that more and more people are chasing dollars rather than doing what they (presumably) said they were passionate about in high school.</p>
<p>@sally305:</p>
<p>Making assumptions, are you not?</p>
<p>Who is to say that you can not make the world better by devising a better marketing campaign for Clorox?</p>
<p>I don’t mind the high tech CEOs or engineers because at least some of stuff they build are useful and prove people lives in general. Who here can live without the internet, google or cell phones.<br>
These investment bankers have known to push button to anhilate themselves and other people. Caused financial instability that we all remember too well. Bank runs and awful stuff.</p>
<p>Trust me, PT, I wouldn’t say that–I work in marketing. :)</p>
<p>This article really shines a light on the experience of a group of young Wall Street bankers.</p>
<p><a href=“http://thebillfold.com/2014/02/the-whelps-of-wall-street-what-its-like-to-work-as-a-junior-banker-on-wall-street-in-the-post-crisis-era/”>http://thebillfold.com/2014/02/the-whelps-of-wall-street-what-its-like-to-work-as-a-junior-banker-on-wall-street-in-the-post-crisis-era/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I was a child my dad supported our family of 5 in Morningside Heights on a minister’s salary (and then post-divorce, my mom as a grad student). You KNOW that isn’t possible anymore. But I think it’s because NYC housing costs have changed that much.</p>
<p>I’m a bit confused with the premise for this thread. The Newsweek article states “the twin sirens of finance and consulting claimed about half of Harvard’s class of 2010”. This appears to be a number provided by Deresiewicz, not by the reporter.</p>
<p>The 2010 Harvard senior survey (<a href=“Senior Survey 2010 | News | The Harvard Crimson”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/5/25/percent-year-seniors-class/</a>) indicates finance and consulting were the choice of 30.52% of the 73.2% with plans to work after graduation. That’s 22% of the graduating class - hardly “about half”.</p>
<p>The 2014 Harvard senior survey (<a href=“Class of 2014, By The Numbers”>http://features.thecrimson.com/2014/senior-survey/</a>) says 31% of the 70% who intend to work after graduation are planning to go into consulting or finance. Again, 22% of the graduating class.</p>
<p>Granted, the actual numbers may be slightly higher as not all seniors who responded to the surveys had finalized their post-graduation plans, but then again, they may be overstated.</p>
<p>Deresiewicz seems to be an expert at playing fast and loose with the facts in order to make a point, and the Newsweek reporter seems to have accepted Deresiewicz’s numbers without any verification.</p>
<p>Or perhaps he has another source of information that contradicts The Crimson?</p>
<p>I think that there’s plenty of greed going around, but I know some recent Harvard (and other) graduates who are currently working in finance or consulting, or who used to work in finance or consulting, and a decent number of them are, in fact, quite idealistic and ambitious in a non-monetary way.</p>
<p>-- Consulting, and, to a lesser extent, the public finance areas of investment banking are a really good way for smart kids to learn a lot quickly and to find good positions in government or the nonprofit world, above the entry-level civil service type of job. Policy advisers to the Governor, running microfinance programs, building low-income housing, project finance in the developing world. One such person runs a successful, growing nonprofit she created to turn around the lives of skid row bum types. Several of Teach For America’s top officers have management consulting stints on their resumes.</p>
<p>-- Some proportion of the people figure (accurately) that they can pay off their college loans in a couple of years, then go to graduate school without that hanging over them.</p>
<p>-- Going back and forth to Wall St. (or the equivalent) is pretty much part and parcel of the new model of a political career, where the ability to self-finance and to raise money from very rich friends is a necessity. Ask Rahm Emanuel, or Mitt Romney. Or any member of the Bush family.</p>
<p>It’s quite interesting to see that certain publications love to inject their obvious left-leaning bias toward certain schools that have been very successful in doing what they “do”…</p>
<p>…for the past few years The New Yorker and the The Atlantic loved running articles trying to make it seem that the “majority” of the Stanford grads were planning to become a tech entrepreneur or venture capitalist and now I see that the sister publications are trying to make it seem like the “majority” of Harvard (and cohorts) grads go into consulting or finance…</p>
<p>…neither paints an illuminating or factual picture…far from it…</p>
<p>…if they only realize that students who attend these schools can and could major/concentrate in any area of focus they desire…and many go on to med schools, law schools, PhD programs, etc…and to assume that students who go on to becoming a tech entrepreneur, venture capitalist, finance, or consulting is any less altruistic than those who go on to become physicians, attorneys, or even academics is very NAIVE…because, over the years, I have met plenty of physicians, attorneys, academics who could care less about their patients, clients, or their students/research…than the almighty dollar or prestige…</p>
<p>…one only need be a fly on the wall to hear what med school and law school students are talking about when they are choosing their specialties…and you would think you were having lunch with the Goldman/Blackstone boys…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>gravitas, the statistics on where Harvard (and cohorts’ ) grads go come from the institutions themselves. There’s no left-wing media conspiracy going on.</p>
<p>But I do agree with you that it’s not just people in finance occupations who want to make serious money.</p>
<p>Although my Harvard experience was at HLS, the career placement is probably similar in that coming from Harvard College and HLS, it’s so easy to just fall into the finance/consulting tracks. Those jobs are often much easier to get than a job in a nonprofit saving rare birds in Tibet, since many consulting/finance firms come to Harvard to interview and have lots of openings, while the nonprofit that saves birds in Tibet does not interview on campus and has few openings. If 80% of Harvard applicants want to save rare birds in Tibet, and only 1% of the job openings by graduation are for saving rare birds in Tibet, just what are the other 79% to do?</p>
<p>Plus, wanting to save the world is not inconsistent in working in finance/consulting, and interests in saving the world can mesh with those jobs, somewhat. I came to Harvard with an interest in saving the world by doing X, Y and Z, and so I did take a job in finance that somewhat related to X, Y and Z. For example, if someone wants to save orphans in Romania, perhaps the person will find a consulting job that focuses on Romania, or has a health care practice that includes orphanages.</p>
<p>As I’ve said many times, it’s better to be on the inside decision-making suites of large corporations and use that kind of leverage to prod them to save the world, than on the outside. Harvard’s career placement puts people on the inside, on tracks that will lead to good, decision-making positions that can overall significantly help the world, fortunately.</p>
<p>“Deresiewicz seems to be an expert at playing fast and loose with the facts in order to make a point, and the Newsweek reporter seems to have accepted Deresiewicz’s numbers without any verification.”</p>
<p>That’s right. The numbers do matter. The facts don’t support D’s thesis, which is why he needs to change them.</p>
<p>More importantly, the problem here (if it is a problem; I would call it a pattern) is about human nature, not Ivy League nature. Does anyone think that if banks and consulting firms descended on East Whoville State offering 6-figure starting salaries, the Whos wouldn’t snap them up? Maybe the banks wouldn’t get much love at Reed or Oberlin, but the vast majority of LACs? They’d be mobbed. They’re offering pots of money and buckets of future opportunities. It’s a really good deal. This is beyond the fact that we are talking about ANY full-time jobs with benefits, which are precious nowadays for new grads across the board.</p>
<p>So the real story here is: carrots offered to humans; humans take carrots. But that won’t sell books. I’d LOVE to have a conversation about how to improve the Ivy League and other elite schools (I want to see more access for kids outside the upper-middle class; less binge drinking; better HS advising; lots of other stuff). Let’s talk about that.</p>
<p>But Hanna, there ARE things to be learned from what’s going on here. These were a few of my takeaways:</p>
<p>1) kids who enter HYP et al. as empowered freshmen with stellar high-school achievements are somehow having the confidence sapped out of them by the time they graduate</p>
<p>2) what you study as an undergrad really doesn’t matter–you can be any kind of liberal-arts major and will still be desirable to the lucrative finance world simply because of your pedigree from an “elite” institution</p>
<p>3) even with your elite degree, you are going to be spending your time making powerpoint presentations</p>
<p>3) there’s a lot more sympathy on this forum for people who work their a**es off at Goldman Sachs than there seems to be for people who work just as hard in less “impressive” or high-paying occupations</p>
<p>
I wouldn’t quite put it this way. I’d say that those stellar high-schoolers find that things are more competitive in the big leagues, which is not necessarily a bad thing for them to learn. HYP graduates are still plenty confident in their own abilities, at least in my observations. They are somewhat less confident that they will be able to get the jobs they’d like to have, and they’re right about that. That’s the PowerPoint part.</p>
<p>Sally305 is a little bit or a lot bit wrong on each of her points.</p>
<ol>
<li>I don’t know where she gets the “confidence sapped out of them” idea. My personal observation is that confidence-to-the-point-of-arrogance is as much a prerequisite for finance or consulting jobs as high GPA, high SATs, and good math skills. It’s absolutely clear that HYPS-alum 22 year-olds don’t somehow systematically know more than, say, Berkeley-alum 22 year-olds. What distinguishes the HYPS people is their absolute faith that they are God’s chosen, smarter and better than anyone else, together with an almost reflexive willingness to meet external expectations.</li>
</ol>
<p>They are so confident and so arrogant, that they do not think what they are doing is in any way venal or a compromise of their ideals. (At least that’s what the ones with ideals think.) In two or three years, many of them plan to be getting a PhD, or founding something like Teach for America, or maybe running a Presidential campaign. Others daydream about what to do with the private foundations they hope to create – a new wing at the Met? a comprehensive cold chain in sub-Saharan Africa? a Harlem Children’s Zone in every ghetto neighborhood coast to coast?</p>
<p>Sure, they may admit that if they had a stronger vision of what they wanted to do, they might be doing it instead of working in consulting or finance, but most are confident that they will develop that vision and follow it. And some of them will even be right! You can’t really expect much more, and the world doesn’t actually need as many Harlem Children’s Zones are there are Starbucks.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It’s not the elite institution pedigree, it’s the combination of analytic skills (which any major can have) including good enough math skills, the aforementioned preternatural confidence, and good communication skills. That’s what they look for. Elite institutions are a target-rich environment if that’s your target.</p></li>
<li><p>What’s the matter with powerpoint presentations? With your elite degree, maybe someone will let you actually make the presentation, as opposed to sitting in the back of the room while someone more senior passes off your work as his.</p></li>
<li><p>I don’t think anyone has a lot of sympathy for these kids. But there’s no question they are “owned” by their employer in a way few employees are. My kid worked 70+ hours/week in two jobs his first couple of years out of college, for a total of less than a third of what these kids are paid, but when he was off he was off – he could have a social life, make plans, etc. And people were grateful to him for what he was doing, and he mostly felt good about it (more at one job than the other), and he felt very little stress because he knew he was doing a good job (lots of feedback). You can’t count on that in elite-world.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>JHS,</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The Vox article cited earlier talked about how Wall Street et al prey on insecure Ivy grads. If they really believe they are "God’s chosen,"as you say, why are behaving otherwise?</p></li>
<li><p>I agree with you–my point was really for “gunner” kids that think they need to get into Wharton undergrad or major in econ to have a shot at the good finance jobs upon graduation.</p></li>
<li><p>No one needs an elite education to be able to figure out powerpoint.</p></li>
<li><p>Pretty much ALL employees in the current labor market feel owned by their employers. Many are doing as much (sometimes in multiple jobs) without any sense of security or an ability to make reasonable demands for work-life balance. And again, no one is making elite-school grads take these sorts of jobs.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>"1. The Vox article cited earlier talked about how Wall Street et al prey on insecure Ivy grads. If they really believe they are "God’s chosen,“as you say, why are behaving otherwise?”</p>
<p>Both sides know what they’re doing. I don’t seeing preying here. Those who enter these jobs know full well it will be killer hours. They are free to accept or decline. </p>