<p>Absolutely no one is in your position Polo.</p>
<p>Here's what you're not getting, the value of a top MBA is getting to know your classmates well. They will be your network for eternity. No $50hr job would ever be worth taking away time from study groups and socializing. All the money needed can be borrowed. That's what smart MBA candidates know, Polo. </p>
<p>You can't see the forest for the trees from behind the Walmart counter darlin'.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Absolutely no one is in your position Polo.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Can't say it hurts me - tends to work really well with the ladies I might add.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Here's what you're not getting, the value of a top MBA is getting to know your classmates well. They will be your network for eternity. No $50hr job would ever be worth taking away time from study groups and socializing. All the money needed can be borrowed. That's what smart MBA candidates know, Polo.
[/quote]
No one is discounting the value of networking while in an MBA program however, what you're not getting is that what you require for ibanking isn't the same as what I require for what I want to do (which is not ibanking). Your field is very network driven whereas mine is more credential driven.
Also, what smart candidates know is that it's more useful socializing with people that are higher in the pecking order than people who are at the same level on the ladder. Realistically, I don't think I'll have any problem socializing and networking and that's solely an individual self-assessment that needs to be made.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can't see the forest for the trees from behind the Walmart counter darlin'.
[/quote]
It's really funny that you picked "forest" and "trees" in your little snide remark. Almost too funny in fact beause I'm willing to bet money that I'm better with forests and trees (land navigation) drunk than you are sober.</p>
<p>so what was the point each of you were trying to make again? if it's about who makes more money, does it really matter? we already agreed that being an athlete or movie star can trump both pharmacists and ibankers so let's just leave it at that haha.</p>
<p>and polo, you really do have a special case and therefore i don't think your arguments are logical. if you want to compare pharmacy with ibanking, you need to take the average pharmacy person and the average ibanker and in terms of compensation in a lifetime, i would say the average ibanker wins out. i haven't seen any specific stats posted in this long discussion but i'd be surprised if i was wrong on that one. from what i know the "average" pharmacist makes about 100-120k for his entire career. i've never heard of ibankers making that except their first few years. and after they burnout from ibanking they can probably go in many different directions and assuming they start at 100k, they can easily up it to 200-300k being a low level director or manager somewhere. again i am too lazy to look up stats but that is what i hear. if you have stats that dispute this, please post and i will be happy to change my opinion.</p>
<p>You would need to read other threads to get the history. In a nutshell, Polo is open about the fact that he has no interest in pharmacy. He's getting a pharmD because he made the decision that he'll make more as a pharmacist than as a banker. We'll ignore for the moment that pharmD students with a 3.0 are not in demand at banks.</p>
<p>The one part the history apparently wasn't needed for was to conclude there is no logic going on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and polo, you really do have a special case and therefore i don't think your arguments are logical.
[/quote]
I believe you meant the word "applicable" rather than "logical" as it makes perfect logical sense to me but not for anyone who is not in the same exact position.
The point I was making was that hmom5's assumption that ibanking is the most profitable field for an individual to go into is false. It may be a popular route, but to say it is the ONLY one is false.
[quote]
You would need to read other threads to get the history. In a nutshell, Polo is open about the fact that he has no interest in pharmacy. He's getting a pharmD because he made the decision that he'll make more as a pharmacist than as a banker. We'll ignore for the moment that pharmD students with a 3.0 are not in demand at banks.</p>
<p>The one part the history apparently wasn't needed for was to conclude there is no logic going on.
[/quote]
What we really need to consider and ponder about here is IF hmom5 is so successful and so knowledgable in her field, what in the WORLD is she doing on a college forum instead of being totally immersed in her field because there is NO way that she would have enough time to be both on a forum and staving off the financial sector from complete ruin. Food for thought.</p>
<p>Nothing about profitability. My argument is that the average pharmD will not make a fraction of what the average ibanker makes. Now and forever.</p>
<p>I'm happy to answer your question Polo. I've just had major back surgery and CC is the perfect venue for recuperation. I've never learned so much in such a short time.</p>
<p>That said, throughout my career I've always taken major blocks of time off and even worked half time for 8 years (still making way more than any 2 job pharmacist). It's another of the myths you like to spread that bankers work constant 100 hour weeks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My argument is that the average pharmD will not make a fraction of what the average ibanker makes. Now and forever.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your argument is flawed. It is fact that the average ibanker does not last long enough in the ibanking field. The average that you are speaking of is the one that actually makes it past 5 years in the industry and you're taking that person and comparing it to the average pharmacy grad.</p>
<p>That is the same as saying, "Hey. The average neurosurgeon makes more than the average family doctor." The average neurosurgeon isn't the average doctor.
Therefore, someone who is able to stay that long in the ibanking field is a special case and it would be logical to compare a special case to a special case.</p>
<p>What I find mildly amusing is that a self-proclaimed expert in her field for 20+ years and who is now probably 50+ years old actually spent as much time as she did debating with a 21 year old pharmacy student to the point where she isn't debating the issue at hand but the focus of her posts have been slight snubs (ad hominem).</p>
<p>Slight snubs? No, I have complete disdain for your comments on these boards, nothing slight at all. My snub is meant to be a major one.</p>
<p>And yes, I'm an old 50 something, but I've been doing this 30 years and I'd say 85% of my hires have made it way past 5 years in this business.</p>
<p>Your claims, as usual, are based on your ongoing delusions rather than any fact.</p>
<p>You say that on average people only work 5 years in banking.. are you trying to say that after those five years they make the same amount as a pharmacist? I think that most people who leave banking (aka the 100 hour week banking) go to PE shops, hedge funds, corporate finance, etc where they are still likely making more than $200k, and working 7 to 7. </p>
<p>You are flawed in thinking that just because "the average banker" may or may not work 5 years at in investment banking, means that a pharmd will still not make a fraction of what the average person does after they leave banking. Most don't leave a job thats paying well over $200k in the first five years of their career to take low paying jobs. Finance as an industry pays higher than pharmacy, regardless of whether you are in IB, hedge fund, upper level corp finance, etc. Furthermore, most bankers are some of the most highly sought after finance professionals, so they get these top paying finance jobs and keep earning a lot. </p>
<p>I understand what you are saying.. she is not the average for a person right out of graduation. Most kids right out of graduation work two years in banking and they don't always make it up to be an MD with 30 years of experience. But your argument is flawed if you think many stop making more than a pharmacy professional after that "5 years", regardless of whether they stay at a bulge bracket.</p>
<p>Where my experiences/ recollections evidently differ :
- My hours truly were horrible, and really did not get that much better. In-office time got replaced with travel time away from family. the divorce rate I witnessed seemed pretty darned high to me. A couple people I know dumped their wives, or were dumped because their wives never saw them, and married VPs at the firm. No surprise, they were with them constantly.</p>
<p>My nephew is there now, working 100 hour weeks. And worrying about layoffs. Unfortunately, this type of concern recurred every four years while I was there.</p>
<ul>
<li>Many, many of the people I started with, are long gone from there. Some went to regional firms, some went onwards and upwards, some just retired and are house-people. Frequently not by choice.
Everyone made a lot of money while they were there, but not everyone was really helped a lot for the thereafter. Sort of like retired athletes.</li>
</ul>
<p>It's hard to go from being paid astronomically to being a member of a "real world" enterprise, where you are not a big fish anymore. Employers are reticent about hiring somebody who's last salary history shows multiple hundred K to do something they know little about, for which the going rate is $80k. And when there is a bear market, when firms start shedding, others are not hiring either;only stars are able to stay in doing what they were doing. I know people who are/ were last I checked: real estate developers, pundits with websites, web site developers, high school teachers, doctors of divinity, people basically retired/ unemployed, trading for their own accounts. One guy is in the army. Many are doing well and were helped, not all of them by any means though. And once you're out, it's very, very hard to get back in. Nearly impossible.</p>
<p>Many, probably the (bare) majority, are still in as well. I don't know the percentages. But the fall-outs are not a trivial number. It is NOT like pharmacy in this regard at all, in my perception. People I know who do pharmacy do it till they retire, at normal retirement age. For better or worse. But they don't make remotely near the bucks, while they are employed.</p>
<p>But then Hmom's perception is as someone who has stayed in, for 30 years, and has been most exposed daily to the subset of those who stayed in. I left New York after 12.</p>
<p>But Ibanking is a big field, a great deal depends on exactly what you were doing, how transferable it is to other fields and enterprises, and how well your particular area manages to stay in demand. People may have very different experiences, depending on exactly what they were doing. I'm not going to debate the matter, but the results are not necessarliy homogeneous from what I've observed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Slight snubs? No, I have complete disdain for your comments on these boards, nothing slight at all. My snub is meant to be a major one.</p>
<p>And yes, I'm an old 50 something, but I've been doing this 30 years and I'd say 85% of my hires have made it way past 5 years in this business.</p>
<p>Your claims, as usual, are based on your ongoing delusions rather than any fact.
[/quote]
Your disdain shows, but that's all that shows. You have said nothing substantitive to counter what I have said. Every snub that you have made has ended with epic embarassment on your end.
If I am delusional, I wouldn't be the first on these forums would I? I find it incredibly interesting that you have devoted so much of your time to me when there's so many other people that deserve the same amount of attention. It proves that I have said something that really hit the nerve with you. Maybe what I have done and do runs counter to everything you have ever believed to be true.
I believe that you are very annoyed by the fact that someone (with what others would describe as a special case) could come from an average school, not be a genius, or superhuman, and still make it and very well exceed what the average ibanker could accomplish. You have the belief that anyone coming from an average school is substandard and couldn't possibly achieve what Ivy graduates could ever achieve. Well, hmom, prepared to be surprised.
[quote]
Finance as an industry pays higher than pharmacy, regardless of whether you are in IB, hedge fund, upper level corp finance, etc.
[/quote]
Based on a first degree from HS and based on the number of hours you work per week, it doesn't pay higher. What does the 1st year ibanking analyst make and what does the fresh pharmacy graduate working 72 hours per week make?
Afterwards, finance as an industry pays higher than pharmacy and I don't disagree. This is where an individual needs to make a decision based on his/her background, education, time+resources invested, strengths and weaknesses.
Based, on what I've committed to so far, it makes zero sense for me to ever switch to ibanking because it just wouldn't offer the same opportunities. I would have to give up the following to go into ibanking:
1. Near guarantee to promotion to Colonel in the Army by my upper 30s in the National Guard/Reserves.
2. The chance to go into patent law where the barriers of entry make the field as lucrative as ibanking (when the times were good for ibankers).</p>
<p>Absolutely nothing you've said is worthy of a reply. You don't know what you're talking about, don't want to learn and that's what this has been about all along.</p>
<p>I've devoted time in hopes that influential kids don't believe a word you say.</p>
<p>some day, probably while counting pills, you'll finally get it. The objective is to do what you love and money will usually follow.</p>
<p>
[quote]
some day, probably while counting pills, you'll finally get it. The objective is to do what you love and money will usually follow.
[/quote]
I'm sure many people would think that way. That's the typical message passed around by many civilians. One thing that is different about us is that we do what is necessary to complete the objective, whether we like it or not. I don't come from an organization of people who just do what they want, we suck it up and we execute.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That said, throughout my career I've always taken major blocks of time off and even worked half time for 8 years (still making way more than any 2 job pharmacist). It's another of the myths you like to spread that bankers work constant 100 hour weeks.
[/quote]
If your career was anything newsworthy, we'd be hearing about you in the headlines instead of hearing your verbage on a college forum. Clearly, you didn't make it to the level that most who go into banking aspire to make it to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm happy to answer your question Polo. I've just had major back surgery and CC is the perfect venue for recuperation. I've never learned so much in such a short time.
[/quote]
You, hmom, are a prime example of the burn-outs in your industry. Clearly, your body could not take the rigors of the field that you speak so highly of. As a pharmacy student, I'd recommend that you get a Rx for 15mg of "Suck it up!".</p>
<p>I rest my case. I feel sorry for you Polo, so I can no longer call you out.</p>
<p>But one last thing, I am truly happy not to be one of the ibankers in the headlines:)</p>
<p>I would much rather be an honest (and I stress honest) investment banker than a pharmacist, even if the pay was the same. And I bankers have far better exit ops. I know an ex Morgan Stanley trader who's heading alternative energy companies. I've had pretty cool conversations with him. Can't say the same about a pharmacist. </p>
<p>BTW, I've been plenty critical of Wall Street. Many were overcompensated or outright frauds. But it is a much more interesting industry than most, and many are still good folk.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The objective is to do what you love and money will usually follow
[/quote]
</p>
<p>made reading this whole thread worthwhile, regardless of what polo just said about that philosophy</p>
<p>
[quote]
You, hmom, are a prime example of the burn-outs in your industry. Clearly, your body could not take the rigors of the field that you speak so highly of. As a pharmacy student, I'd recommend that you get a Rx for 15mg of "Suck it up!".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As a prelaw student, I advise you to drop the case and plead ignorance. And Pharmacists don't write prescriptions, doctors do. You just fill them. And if you do write prescriptions, I'll be waiting for you, subpoena in hand. ;)</p>
<p>and yes, on an average basis, the average Wall Streeter make more money than the average pharmacist. Accounting for risk, well that depends on how much you value income/job security. Seriously, though, what's the starting salary for a researcher at Glaxo? $75k?</p>
<p>Heck, even the average biglaw lawyer will make more money than a pharmacist. It's not a job you go into to make big money (neither is the legal profession).</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a prelaw student, I advise you to drop the case and plead ignorance. And Pharmacists don't write prescriptions, doctors do. You just fill them. And if you do write prescriptions, I'll be waiting for you, subpoena in hand.
[/quote]
[quote]
As a pharmacy student, I'd recommend that you get a Rx for 15mg of "Suck it up!".
[/quote]
It reads, "I recommend you get a prescription for X" which clearly did not mean...
[quote]
And if you do write prescriptions,
[/quote]
I would have expected a pre-law student to have picked up on that. Details like that could make the difference between winning a case and losing one due to carelessness.
[quote]
and yes, on an average basis, the average Wall Streeter make more money than the average pharmacist. Accounting for risk, well that depends on how much you value income/job security. Seriously, though, what's the starting salary for a researcher at Glaxo? $75k?
[/quote]
Again, you haven't been reading carefully and you probably should have. I said that with the average number of hours that one spends being an ibanker, it would have been impossible to acquire both a PharmD + JD.
[quote]
Third, the JD (+PharmD) would allow you to specialize in regulatory affairs in the pharmaceutical industry or patent law (and that additional engineering degree can't possibly hurt in this field).
[/quote]
Also refer to post #91.
This combination would allow you to get into patent law which is arguably more lucrative than big law as the barriers to entry are far higher along with the massive demand.
[quote]
Heck, even the average biglaw lawyer will make more money than a pharmacist. It's not a job you go into to make big money (neither is the legal profession).
[/quote]
Also, because ibanking consumes extreme amounts of time according to monydad:
[quote]
Where my experiences/ recollections evidently differ :
- My hours truly were horrible, and really did not get that much better. In-office time got replaced with travel time away from family. the divorce rate I witnessed seemed pretty darned high to me. A couple people I know dumped their wives, or were dumped because their wives never saw them, and married VPs at the firm. No surprise, they were with them constantly.</p>
<p>My nephew is there now, working 100 hour weeks. And worrying about layoffs. Unfortunately, this type of concern recurred every four years while I was there.
[/quote]
It would prevent me from having a dual career in the National Guard which I near guaranteed to make Colonel by the time I'm in my upper 30s which is considered extremely fast because I could take advantage of the unrestricted promotions in the AMEDD/Medical Corps. That rank allows you to network with some of the most important officials in the state.</p>
<p>I have better things to do than argue with you. For example, learn French. I actually work towards my goals....:rolleyes:</p>
<p>I'll read your posts in more detail if I get around to it. Bye.</p>
<p>good points made by everyone haha.</p>