<p>That’s a touchy deal. I can’t mention my firm’s name for a couple reasons. </p>
<p>In terms of the quality of life and comp I would be happy to speculate. Obviously at the very top end of firms, which I’m no where near, the large bulge bracket firms pay better. At the middle management level and frankly even at the entry level I think very small firms pay better. You also get more hands on training and more responsibility. That can pay off both in your career, enjoyment on the job, and if you want to go back to get an MBA or whatever down the road. </p>
<p>Also the bonus structure is more advanced at lower levels for small firms. In other words, at JP you might have an 80/20 split between salary and bonus. At a botique you could see a 40/60 split or better. A friend of mine who went from JP to a well known hedge fund told me his annual bonus at the fund was more than his entire compensation at JP. He doesn’t have an MBA. He’s not even near middle management. </p>
<p>The downside risk, regardless of whether you’re in I-banking, Private Equity, Equity Research, ect is that you don’t have the ‘name brand’ associated with you. Personally, I don’t care too much for name brands. Finding the firms is much more difficult as well. Some will have 25 people or even less, not counting partners and support staff. This means getting a job is very tough at those firms. You don’t have to jump through all the hoops that a MS, GS, ML will make you jump through though. The process can take longer. </p>
<p>Right now, Private Equity is doing ok, I-banks that specialize in Restructuring are doing fantastic. </p>
<p>One last thing, without getting too political, is that you may want to look more heavily at smaller firms with the democrats in charge. Wall Street is taking heat and the regulators (SEC and FINRA) are going to start with the big boys. What I mean by that is that the abiltiy to generate alpha is dissipating. With the ‘edge’ gone, the big boys are going to pay less and be much more bureaucratic. </p>
<p>The typical route is Analyst->Associate->VP->Director->Managing Director</p>
<p>Not to start anything back up, but I had to respond to this…
Like yourself?
***? I personally don’t really mind it, as it only shows that your own opinion is more or less meaningless…
Maybe you’ve had bad experiences with Tufts graduates, but you’re going to find windbags from anywhere and my experience is that, at least now, most Tufts students tend not to be very arrogant.</p>
<p>Thanks Benetode. As has been discussed in other threads, Tufts gets a lot of recruitment from boutiques, many of them Boston-based as you’d expect. There’s some interest from larger firms, but not a ton. I’ve always been inclined to prefer small firms, if nothing else for the sense of greater autonomy. Cool to hear from someone in the field. </p>
<p>Real good point about the current political climate. Not only will small firms attract less fire, but one might hope that the current administration will block up some of the revolving doors between big firms and regulatory agencies, which should also decrease the advantage big firms have.</p>
<p>Interesting how some good came from all this, given the origins of the post. Good luck with your career Snarf. Sounds like you have interesting times ahead, and certainly it is a fascinating (and uncertain?) time to be in your field, but I think we cna always count on the markets coming back and being vigorous and vital. Nature of the beast, certainly in the USA and on an increasing basis, the rest of the world.</p>
<p>I’ll make one last comment on the USNWR/PR thing. So their rankings make the prestige factor happen, which are then used to survey whether or not the schools are prestigious. My gut tells me there is a circular argument in there somewhere. Cause is effect. There has GOT to be something wrong with that, LOL. Taking it out of the micro level of this comparison, I have said a few times, and I know you agree based on your comments, that people have some kind of innate need for the reinforcement that a high rnaking by some seemingly reputable entity provides. I can sit here and intellectually know that it is mostly ridiculous, since it is really either an immeasurable quality (prestige), or somewhat arbitrary based on factors selected to measure and the weighting of those factors (rankings). Yet even knowing this, I also know that if Tulane shoots up in the USNWR rankings, it will make me smile. I guess just because I know that people do use them, and so it helps the school. But also because I am human (sorry Harry).</p>
<p>Why is prestige immeasurable? Couldn’t one just do surveys and ask? Sure, but what do you ask? The very word is interpreted differently by different people, so what do you have at the end except some very squishy, nebulous result. Being an MBA with a concentration in marketing (hence the fallen part of my name after also going to grad school in chemistry), I have been involved in a few surveys in my time. Trying to eliminate bias in the questions and having confidence that the results actually impart some useful information to take action on is often extremely difficult. So I guess I am saying again that the prestige argument will always be very soft. To me, there are lots of factors in picking the right place to go undergrad, and one of the most important is finding a peer group that challenges you without leaving you in the dust. Thus focusing on Tufts being more selective than Tulane is entirely appropriate as one aspect of comparing the schools. I am saying this in general, not to you, Snarf. You did acknowledge that, no doubt about it. I am just saying discussing and arguing about a vaporous concept like prestige is most likely a waste of time.</p>
<p>Actually I wasn’t asking Benetode about finance for me. I’m in the Tufts Finance Group as an extracurricular, and large firm v. boutique is a choice facing a lot of my friends in it. I personally plan on going to school for urban planning and working in the sustainable development field, preferably as a consultant or in-house advisor at a developers’ firm, real estate firm, or law firm (I may also get a JD).</p>
<p>I definitely agree that the rankings are circular. This is so true that the New York Times quoted the original developer of the ranking system, Mel Elfin, as claiming that he knew his ranking system worked because it always landed Harvard, Yale, and Princeton on top. So your attempt to objectively measure colleges must be correct because it conforms to your subjective idea of which colleges are best? Well, if conforming to your preconceived notions is the test of a ranking system, why have one at all? Why not just stick to your preconceived notions?
More generally speaking, prestige surveys make up 25% of the final rankings. Since very few people have first-hand or even second-hand experience of every college there is, people who fill out surveys largely rely, at the very least subconsciously, on what they know of college rankings to inform their decision. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle that serves no real purpose but to drive magazine sales.</p>
<p>Even though most people, when pressed, will admit that the rankings don’t actually give useful information, they still influence people’s decisions. Check out this excerpt from a Washington Monthly article:
So, arbitrary and meaningless? Sure. Completely inconsequential? Unfortunately not.</p>
<p>And modifying my previous statement, best of luck with your career choices. It all sounds interesting. I know a few people at Wash U that are into urban planning. I never have any idea what they are talking about.</p>
<p>Wow, you guys take rankings waaaay too seriously. Just a few years from now, no one will care if you went to Tulane or Tufts, just what kind of person you are, and what kind of work you produce. And if they do care, why would you care about what they think?</p>
<p>I think you miss the point, westernhills. It isn’t that we take them seriously, in the sense you portray it. If you read the posts carefully you will see it is quite the opposite. But Snarf correctly points out that people make decisions, for better or more likely worse, based on rankings, perceived prestige which may or may not be the same as the rankings, academic competitiveness which is not particularly related to the rankings, etc. etc.</p>
<p>However, I will say that if you think that when you are going for your first job, and maybe even your second, that it has no influence on the person doing the hiring whether you went to Harvard, Tufts, Tulane, Syracuse, University of New Mexico, or Podunk U, then I think you are mistaken. It won’t be the primary factor, but in close calls it can certainly be an influential one. Besides that, being in an atmosphere for 4 years that makes you much sharper because your peers were as smart or smarter than you were, as opposed to cruising through because you were always the curve setter, makes a significant difference. Of course there are individual cases of people doing extremely well coming out of less competitive schools. But on the whole, people coming out of upper tier schools are earning much more 15 years down the road. Of course they were more talented to begin with, on average. But honing that talent in a challenging environment is also important. Does that all equate to “prestige”? No, not exactly. That was the basis of what was, I thought, a fairly useful and intelligent discussion, with some notable exceptions.</p>
<p>You are right that no one cares that I went to Tulane at this point in my career. My record is what matters now. But it surely was important when I first got out, both overtly and for the opportunities I had there that made it possible for me to get into a top 5 grad school, etc. etc.</p>