<p>Wow, I just actually took the time to read your original post, and wow...this is not the school for you.</p>
<p>Yup - not the school for him at all.</p>
<p>In any case, I don't understand why people chase these attractive starting salaries at I-Banks right out of college. It's a miserable life with little reward, and it chews you up and spits you out in very little time.</p>
<p>People who want enormous salaries have a very simple pathway if they want one: go to a good-enough college, perform fairly well, get a good LSAT score, go to a top-14 law school, and don't suck in law school. If you follow that formula, you'll come out after 7 years (4 undergrad + 3 law school) with a starting salary (including bonus) of $200K. And, as miserable as being an associate at a small firm may be, it's almost certainly less miserable than I-Banking, from what I've read on the subject.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I apologize to the regulars for bringing law school into everything - can you tell it's on my mind? :-)</p>
<p>Law School sucks if you just ant to make money. If you want money go to med school. The average lawyer makes 175,000 while the average physician in private practice makes over 350,000.</p>
<p>Med school is a miserable mess that can last, all told, almost a decade. Law school is three years long, and only the first year is really tough.</p>
<p>Also, med school requires a commitment at least as early as your sophomore year to do all of the (miserable) pre-med classes or a post-bac after college. These classes are famously full of grade-grubbing *******s. Law school has no required classes whatsoever.</p>
<p>Also, admissions rates at top medical schools are considerably lower than at top law schools. It is much, much harder to get into a top med school.</p>
<p>Finally, your numbers are wrong :-)</p>
<p>the difference is that with IBanking you make $$$ right out of college, and then get sent on a 2-year vacation (MBA) after about 3 years, after which you'll settle in to a less stressful, high paying job. if you're in law for the money, you're pretty much stuck in high-stress biglaw for an indetermined amount of years, after three years of law school (the first two of which make undergrad look like a joke). if you want to make money, law is certainly more stressful in the long run than ibanking</p>
<p>the fact that so many people jump on the OP just for being concerned about how much he makes is pretty inane and IMO gives people the wrong impression of the school--not EVERYBODY is some starry-eyed "change-the-world" kid who will make 35k after college upon realizing they aren't really doing anything. I'd rather shoot myself than go into Ibanking, but is it really so terrible that he wants to make money? all of the IB gunners can be pretty annoying, but so can the "if you don't work for an NGO after graduation [which I can afford to because daddy gives me lots of money]" kids</p>
<p>No it's not terrible to make money, but the truth is, if you think the entire worth of your education is described by the paycheck at the end of your four years you have NO idea what it could be, what it's meant to be, and what it should be. I hope to at least be a step beyond my parents, though I'm not sure if that'll be possible, but the truth is, I know that what I'm gaining here is about 5% earning potential, 95% other, which I would describe but I don't think it's necessary.</p>
<p>Truth is, if you're pretty smart, you'll make money no matter what your path to the work place is. College is way more than a vehicle for increasing earning potential.</p>
<p>And btw, I'm receiving a pretty solid amount of financial aid.</p>
<p>I was actually much more turned off by the OP's rude responses </p>
<p>"LITS en, cant you just answer the question?
which part of</p>
<p>" how much do internships pay "</p>
<p>did you not understand"</p>
<p>rather than his money whoring. I will probably end up a money whore myself , although it's more because I'm good at it and I enjoy it rather than I want the money.</p>
<p>Just for the record here, you can be rich and unhappy just as easily as you can be poor and happy!!!!</p>
<p>Do what you love...?</p>
<p>i have no problem with money whoring. i do have a problem with uninformed decisions and ignorance.</p>
<p>in investment banking, there are different groups. technology (developing in-house apps) would be very different from Mergers & Acquisitions advisory (emphasis on people skills). they look for different skill sets, personalities, determines your career trajectory very differently..</p>
<p>and some people just easily say, "I want to go work in Ibanking".</p>
<p>..sorry, a little bit off track there, but I need to get that off my chest.</p>
<p>Okay I'm going to go out on a limb and say I DO have a problem with money whoring!! And I'm frankly surpised that I am so far the only one. </p>
<p>There is so much more to life than being rich! A family of 4 can live happily, and comfortably, with a combined salary of 75K...or less! (I'm just throwing that number out there). </p>
<p>So be whatever makes you happy. Be a postman if that makes you happy! Be a kindergarten teacher! Be whatever! And don't tell me being rich is what makes you happy. Codswallop! Being bored off your ass staring at papers all day IBanking (or whatever you do IBanking), and going home and saying, wow, I'm so rich, does not make a person happy. That's superficial. Artificial. Vain. </p>
<p>Cha. <em>steps off of high horse</em></p>
<p>Of course you can be happy without money, but speaking as someone who hasn't had money growing up, it sure does makes things overall more easy and often allows you to enjoy stuff you wouldnt be able to otherwise (e.g., nice vacations, a good car, and less obvious things such as nice kitchen cutlery, or other items associated with hobbies). The fact is that some people simply enjoy having money, and many career paths which people take for the "good of society" are really just for show as much as anything (not to mention that such people, especially from private schools like Brown, often have cushy amounts of money to fall back on). Like money, not everybodys happiness is defined by what their career is, something that it seems like people at Brown often ignore--everybody has different preferences.</p>
<p>ElPope, I'd say that people who are doing jobs for the "good of society" should be and would be appalled at your assertion they've got something cushy to fall back on. But that's another story...</p>
<p>And for what it's worth, my attitude is that I'm going to spend more time at my career than any other single thing in life other than sleeping. You're damn right I'm hoping to gain pleasure and satisfaction from that much of a percentage of my life.</p>
<p>Sure they'd be appalled, but it's often true. It's very easy to take a public service job when you already have a decent amount of money, so having nice things is already taken for granted. </p>
<p>It's true that you spend a massive amount of hours on your career, but it certainly isn't what defines you. It's really only in the last century that people have had the option of choosing from a wide range of jobs, and even then some people still can't. Some people gain pleasure and satisfaction from having money, and thus from their career, even if they aren't absolutely in love with it. If having money allows a person to pursue many interests, and having a career one is in love with allows the person to pursue a large interest, what's the difference? </p>
<p>For that matter, there are plenty of people who are fortunate enough to both enjoy their job and make large amounts of dough. People at Brown act like everyone in business is a walking zombie who hates himself--in fact, many of these people are often some of the most interesting to be around (naturally there are also your fair share of gunners and Gordon Gekkos) and shouldn't be stereotyped just because they chose a high-paying job. Unlike what many Brown students seem to believe, it's not like choosing ibanking or consulting or whatever sucks the life out of you and means you take money over happiness and don't contribute any thing to society.</p>
<p>I know I can't be the only one who genuinely thinks things like economics and finance are interesting...</p>
<p>And while a lot of people "saving the world" are doing so on their own steam, if you look, I think you'll find that just as many are getting their rent and food and who knows what else paid for by their parents, are still on their health insurance, etc. (At least, the just out of college world-savers)</p>
<p>I'm simply saying that characterizing those people as having cushy lives and a nice security blanket to fall back on is just as stupid as characterizing people who make money as hating their job.</p>
<p>I'm looking to do both, that'd be great. And I'm really pleased that I live in a century and in a world where I do have a magnificent amount of choice to do what it is I want and I can't wait to excercise this ability. It's called progress.</p>
<p>I think it's unfortunate that the primary concern of some people is a dollar amount and not fulfillment/enjoyment. Of course, I'm not saying you need to work for free, but there are plenty of great, reasonably paying jobs (i.e., enough to survive and raise a family) that are worth pursuing even if they don't make as much as others.</p>
<p>I think it's just that people have the illusion that six figures are needed to raise a family or to be a better person or something.</p>
<p>I never said <em>everybody</em> who takes a public interest job from a top school does, just many of them. And why is it "unfortunate" that some people want to make money? Maybe having money and things which can be achieved with having money is fulfilling to some people? Some are satisfied having a job they're engrossed in and "survive and raise a family", while others prefer to make more money at a job they don't love (but can still <em>like</em>) and pursue other interests.</p>
<p>first point, you can be a money whore and still like your job.</p>
<p>second, if you don't like your job, then it is natural to have a high pay to compensate you for that horrible job. the fact that you accepted the job indicates that a balance between work displeasure and reward has been reached.</p>
<p>third, people have different functions of utility. if one is happier ultimately because he possesses more money, then i say be it. monks are happier being in a monastery all their lives; professors take great joy in doing research and teaching -- different things make different people happy! how can one generalizes what makes everyone happy? that is absurd. </p>
<p>yes, i agree to the notion that you should just do whatever makes you happy. but wouldn't doing something that makes you rich has the potential to make you happy too?</p>
<p>(..i can totally see myself getting flamed in the next post..)</p>
<p>Of course you can have a lucrative job and like it. </p>
<p>My point is that if you are like the OP and are saying "i want money and screw the rest," if you have a job you don't like but make a lot of money and are therefore satisfied, you are a superficial idiot. Yes, that was a value judgement.</p>