<p>I was curious how people would rank the top 10 best ibanks and consulting firms in terms of desirability and best future career prospects.</p>
<p>well, i dont know about top 10...but these are the #1's:</p>
<p>Investment Bank = Goldman Sachs
Consulting = McKinsey</p>
<p>Those are in alphabetical order.</p>
<p>IBanks:
Citigroup
Credit Suisse
Deutsche Bank
Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan
Lazard Freres
Lehman Brothers
Merrill Lynch
Morgan Stanltey
UBS</p>
<p>CONSULTING:
A. T. Kearney
Bain & Company
Booz Allen Hamilton
Boston Consulting Group (BCG)
Deloitte Consulting
L.E.K. Consulting
McKinsey & Company
Mercer
Monitor Group
Parthenon Group</p>
<p>collegebound9696,
Your question is understandable, but shows a lack of understanding of these industries and this failing on your part could well put you at a disadvantage when the time comes to interview. The reality is that all of the firms have strengths and relative weaknesses and the nature of the job experience that you have will impact future perceptions more than just the brand name of the firm at which you worked. I suggest that you do a little more homework on each of the firms that Alexandre listed above and try to get a sense of which businesses are most important to them. If you gain that level of knowledge and understanding, you will be at an advantage in your interview, not to mention how this might help you strategically go to a firm and a department where you really want to be and can do substantive work.</p>
<p>Regardless of actual merits, the prestige-o-meter would never have McKinsey below Booz, and AT Kearny.</p>
<p>Anyway consulting is way better than banking (or at least you could say less awful). You have a broader array of activities, you learn more, you get to travel more, your hours are less absurd, and (in the top firms) you still get the prestige that catapaults you right back into HBS/Wharton etc</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway consulting is way better than banking (or at least you could say less awful)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but it pays a lot less. A lot less.</p>
<p>Perhaps a lot less, but how much are we talking about here? It's not exactly chump change. Given a choice between the two, I'd prefer consulting based on ilovebagels' explanation, even if there is a significant monetary difference.</p>
<p>Ken, a successful IBanker's bonus can run into the 7 figures. Consulting does notcome close to that, unless one makes partner. But I agree, MC is more fun and less stressful than IB.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and (in the top firms) you still get the prestige that catapaults you right back into HBS/Wharton etc
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Unless you start with a fair amount of prestige, you're not getting in to one of these firms to begin with.</p>
<p>The above statement is absolutely and completely false.</p>
<p>Right now most bankers aren't getting big fat bonuses, for obvious reasons.</p>
<p>Consultants are still very well-paid, and seem to almost enjoy their jobs. I have a lot of friends who have graduated and gone into ibanking and without exception they all say they can't wait to get out of it and do something else.</p>
<p>ilovebagels, I agree with you as far as the likeability of the work. But if one is in it for the money, IBanking is generally more lucrative.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I agree with you entirely. I guess I just take it as a given that one shouldn't do anything solely "for the money." Clearly I'm not ibanking material.</p>
<p>Heck when I first got to college, I thought it was written as iBanking and some sort of new Apple/internet product.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps a lot less, but how much are we talking about here? It's not exactly chump change. Given a choice between the two, I'd prefer consulting based on ilovebagels' explanation, even if there is a significant monetary difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Generally about double when you're starting out. And for experienced folks, the pay differential accelerates dramatically.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Right now most bankers aren't getting big fat bonuses, for obvious reasons.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, still looks pretty darn good to me.</p>
<p>Wall</a> Street bonuses down, but not out - Jan. 18, 2008</p>
<p>Sakky - total first year compensation for a consultant at McK is 80K, for Goldman it is 140K.</p>
<p>McK works about 50-60 hours a week, Goldman works about 70-80 (60-70 in Sales and Trading).</p>
<p>The thing is, later on I'm sure McK people get into Business schools and stuff more often.</p>
<p>total compensation for a schoolteacher, meanwhile, is around 40K...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky - total first year compensation for a consultant at McK is 80K, for Goldman it is 140K.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly: so it's about double, which is what I said. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The thing is, later on I'm sure McK people get into Business schools and stuff more often.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I don't know about that. Some of that may be due to personal choice. If you do extremely well at GS, you can probably just jump directly to private equity or hedge funds or venture capital, or start your own fund without ever needing to go to B-school. Granted, you may be able to find a very nice job sans-MBA if you do very well at McKinsey. But the point is, it's not clearly who really is more likely to actually get into, as opposed to who wants to get into B-schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
total compensation for a schoolteacher, meanwhile, is around 40K...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but schoolteachers get the whole summer off. They (usually) get a whole week off for Christmas, and often times another whole week off in spring. Many school districts also offer tenure after a few years, which effectively makes you unfireable. I believe I read somewhere that in the past (before Bloomberg's latest reforms), the NYC public school systems could fire only a handful of tenured teachers every year due to the massive expense and due process involved in doing so. The point is, tenured teachers have a level of job security that most private sector employees - especially consultants and bankers - can only dream of.</p>