<p>Yes, I banking jobs are usually very GPA dependent.</p>
<p>"do most people who do Ibanking end up working for someone else their entire lives? If they left the finance/banking industry to work in a more manufacturing/industrial/tech field would they actually be able to control those industries? It seems they would naturally lack the technical knowledge to understand those products. That's the reason I don't particular like the ibanking/finance industry."</p>
<p>Most people who start off as investment bankers leave banking after a few years. The ones who stay and succeed end up running the banks,etc. and making lots of money. The ones who leave typically leave for private equity, venture capital, hedge funds, etc. where they will probably work for someone but still be making a ton of money and eventually maybe climb the ladder to a leadership postion. Others in banking leave for industry jobs in finance... they will go and work in the finance dept of a fortune 500 company. Many do well and end up leading their division or make the switch to a higher management position later on in their career. For example, I know a few bankers who left banking after their analyst years then went on to work in industry (one is in tech, the other in media) and both are about 26 and have very high up jobs in their respective companies (they both report to the CFO and other sr execs). Some former bankers start their own firms/companies/etc.</p>
<p>Banking is a good field to start off in because it gives you the opportunity and training to succeed in pretty much every type of business job.</p>
<p>"My question really is: do you have to beone of the top students to get a job as an i-banker? I will be going to Berkeley for my undergrad next year and i was wondering how difficult it would be to get a job as an analyst after i finish my 4 years at Berkeley. Do you have to be in the top x% of your schools to get interviews from recruiters? Also, how hard is it to get a job as an associate after you graduate from an MBA program? Again, do you have to be at the top of your class? Thansk guys!"</p>
<p>usually if you don't have connections the resume screening process is very gpa driven...then once you get an interview it's more about fit,personality,etc. If you have connections you can usually manage to get an interview with a sub-par gpa...</p>
<p>Quick question, how do the different departments (subdivisions?) in an investment bank affect the lifestyle of a banker? I think I read somewhere that corporate finance is the toughest to get into and that's the hellish one, with the 90+ hour/weeks; how does this reltae to the other departments, especially research and sales & trading?</p>
<p>YEAH- i want know about typical work hours for workers under the sales&trading department.</p>
<p>12 hours a day 5 days a week (not weekends) and then add in a little extra if you want to spend individual time working on models etc, you also get a mandatory vacation for checking your books</p>
<p>When you guys say getting an i-banking job is very GPA dependent, what kind of GPA are you talking about? Do the i-banks consider the rigor of your school when comparing GPA's. For example, Berkeley is notorious for grade deflation...so if i get a lower GPA than an another applicant who went to a school that was easier to get high grades in, will the other applicant be put at an advantage?</p>
<p>in general they look to make sure your GPA is 3.5+ but then again they also take into account that certain schools are more rigorous...for example a 3.5+ GPA at wharton is stellar the average is like 3.1ish I know many people who have gotten into banking with 3.0 and under (like I know a guy at Citigroup who had a 2.75) GPAs.</p>
<p>Im sorry for asking so many questions, but if i get a 3.5+ at UC Berkeley, do you think i would be able to get job offers as an i-banker? Do you know if i-banks even recruit from schools on the West Coast? Thanks a lot.</p>
<p>12 hrs a day-Not bad at all.....go to work at 7am, leave at 7pm.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most people who start off as investment bankers leave banking after a few years. The ones who stay and succeed end up running the banks,etc. and making lots of money. The ones who leave typically leave for private equity, venture capital, hedge funds, etc. where they will probably work for someone but still be making a ton of money and eventually maybe climb the ladder to a leadership postion. Others in banking leave for industry jobs in finance... they will go and work in the finance dept of a fortune 500 company. Many do well and end up leading their division or make the switch to a higher management position later on in their career. For example, I know a few bankers who left banking after their analyst years then went on to work in industry (one is in tech, the other in media) and both are about 26 and have very high up jobs in their respective companies (they both report to the CFO and other sr execs). Some former bankers start their own firms/companies/etc.
[/quote]
So those without engineering degrees and go into Ibanking typically don't have the necessary background to rise to officer level management in tech/science/manufacturing oriented industries? So for the most part, they are stuck in the finance/banking industry. Either they do very well in that industry or they leave the finance/banking market and take up more of a "supporting" function in another field rather than a core function.</p>
<p>"So those without engineering degrees and go into Ibanking typically don't have the necessary background to rise to officer level management in tech/science/manufacturing oriented industries? "</p>
<p>No i'm saying that many end up making the transition from banking to leadership management positions in industry. If you look at the officers of many tech/sci/etc companies there are plenty of former bankers and consultants...probably more then engineers who climbed the ladder...those guys typically end up holding officer positions as heads of R&D, Manufacturing, etc. while the bankers/consultants end up as mainly as CFOs (and sometimes CIOs, CEOs,etc.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some large state universities have PharmD programs that you apply to directly out of HS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you're just harping on exceptions here. AFter all, I can point to the guys I know who are getting full rides at Harvard (either because they came from poor families or because they racked up a boatload of outside scholarships). I know a bunch of guys who went to Stanford on football scholarships. The guys who weren't good enough to make it to the NFL often times ended up in investment banking. These guys never paid a dime for any of their schools. And then of course there is my brother who got a full merit ride to Caltech.</p>
<p>The point is, we can talk about exceptions all day long. What we should be talking about is the AVERAGE. The fact is, the average pharmacy student is not going to get a 6-year deal. More like 7 or 8. Let's face it. Most pharmacy students do not have the luck to be living in a state that has a program you can apply to right out of high school, and even if they do, many of them won't even know about such a program and hence won't even apply. I believe I read somewhere how the majority of recent incoming PharmD students have bachelor's degrees. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Agreed. The training that Ibanking offers one is not easily matched by any other industry. But I was wondering...do most people who do Ibanking end up working for someone else their entire lives? If they left the finance/banking industry to work in a more manufacturing/industrial/tech field would they actually be able to control those industries? It seems they would naturally lack the technical knowledge to understand those products. That's the reason I don't particular like the ibanking/finance industry.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, look, the truth is (possibly a sad truth) is that you don't really NEED to have technical knowledge of products in order to control industries. You don't. Look at all of the major companies in the world who are led by people who don't have deep technical knowledge. Look at the software company Oracle (2nd largest in the world after Microsoft). Oracle is still led by its founder, Larry Ellison. Admittedly, Larry Ellison is technically knowledgeable (despite not having a college degree at all). But the 2 people directly under him - co-Presidents Charles Phillips and Safra Catz, are basically ex-bankers (Phillips from Morgan Stanley, Catz from Credit Suisse First Boston). Jeff Henley, the Chairman of Oracle, is also basically a banker/financier. They're not engineers at all. </p>
<p>Or, since you seem to know the pharmaceutical industry well, let's look at the leaders of Big Pharma. Hank McKinnell, the CEO of Pfizer, is not really a scientist. He's basically an applied economist (he holds a Ph.D. in business administration from Stanford). Richard Clark, CEO of Merck, does not hold a science degree. Instead, he has degrees in business and in the liberal arts. David Brennan, CEO of AstraZeneca, is basically a salesman. He rose from the sales ranks without deep technical knowledge (as few sales reps actually have deep technical knowledge of the products they are selling - that's what the scientists and engineers are for). </p>
<p>Now, of course, there are other industry leaders who actually have deep technical knowledge of the products they are selling. But the point is, you evidently don't NEED it. Whether we like it or not, there are a lot of people who get hired into top management positions that don't actually have deep technical knowledge of their company's products. Instead, they come up from business functions such as sales, marketing, HR, finance, legal affairs, etc. where you don't actually need to know that much about your company's products. All you need to have are general business skills. </p>
<p>To give you perhaps the most extreme example, when IBM almost went bankrupt in the early 90's, the Board of IBM brought in Lou Gerstner. Was Gerstner a deeply knowledgeable computer guy? Not at all, and he admitted he wasn't. He was a former McKinsey senior consultant who then became President of American Express and then CEO of RJR Nabisco. He freely admitted that he knew nothing about computers. But that wasn't seen as a bad thing - that was actually seen as a very good thing, because IBM was in crisis mode and the Board wanted somebody who could give a fresh, outsider's perspective. IBM had plenty of leaders who did have deep technical knowledge, and these people basically ran IBM into the ground. So it was determined that maybe they should get somebody who actually knows nothing about computers to come in to fix the company. Gerstner is widely credited from rescuing IBM from the brink. Many say that it was precisely the fact that he didn't know anything about computers meant that he could make vast changes to the company (like scrap entire product lines), whereas somebody who actually knew computers well hesitate to scrap product lines with such long histories. </p>
<p>But the point is, whether we like it or not, the fact is, you don't really need deep technical knowledge in order to be a highly successful manager. Plenty of highly successful managers don't have such knowledge.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Im sorry for asking so many questions, but if i get a 3.5+ at UC Berkeley, do you think i would be able to get job offers as an i-banker? Do you know if i-banks even recruit from schools on the West Coast? Thanks a lot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's accurate to say that you will get INTERVIEWS if you have a high GPA from Berkeley. But getting the actual offer is another matter entirely. I've known people with stellar GPA's who got lots of Ibanking interviews, but didn't get a single offer. Getting the actual offer takes a certain personality and certain 'look' that a lot of people simply don't have. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you know if i-banks even recruit from schools on the West Coast? Thanks a lot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously they do. There's a certain school in Palo Alto in which they do a LOT of recruiting</p>
<p>But they also recruit a fair amount at Berkeley too. But again, it has a lot to do with 'soft' factors - how you look, how you dress, how you speak, do you seem confident, etc. Some of these things you can change, but not all of them. For example, if you're short and ugly, then the truth is, you're probably not going to get a banking offer. In contrast, a tall, handsome guy who has the banker's "look" will have a much easier time in getting offers. </p>
<p>In fact, I think this is why so many ex-jocks, especially college football players, end up in banking. A lot of them have the right 'look' and they are clearly highly confident and extroverted.</p>
<p>"So those without engineering degrees and go into Ibanking typically don't have the necessary background to rise to officer level management in tech/science/manufacturing oriented industries? So for the most part, they are stuck in the finance/banking industry. Either they do very well in that industry or they leave the finance/banking market and take up more of a "supporting" function in another field rather than a core function."</p>
<p>That's not altogether a mistaken impression.</p>
<p>It can be a rude awakening to find out that, as a former "master of the universe" your accumulated knowledge is actually rather useless in someone else's world.</p>
<p>This does not just apply to engineering fields. In just about every field workers build up accumulated specialized knowledge and skills. someone who's done something else does not automatically know everything that others who have been toiling all the time in these businesses know.</p>
<p>For example, an engineer trying to switch to finance with no specialized training in between would also be at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, an engineer trying to switch to finance with no specialized training in between would also be at a disadvantage.
[/quote]
But, its easier for an engineer to switch to finance than a finance major to switch to engineering. In other words, does engineering offer more flexibility/opportunities in the future than majoring in business as an undergrad?</p>
<p>I agree with sakky that many successful CEOs and other executives do have business undergrad backgrounds but it appears that a higher percentage of engineers make it. At my school, there are TONs of business/econ majors but the % of qualified individuals is probably very low. This major has a lot of people who are not so bright. On the otherhand, the engineering school probably has a much higher % of individuals who are qualified to make it to the top.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, its easier for an engineer to switch to finance than a finance major to switch to engineering. In other words, does engineering offer more flexibility/opportunities in the future than majoring in business as an undergrad?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the answer is clearly 'yes', as evidenced by what you've seen - a high percentage of highly successful engineers in fields that have nothing to do with engineering. </p>
<p>The salient truth is that most entry-level jobs are really not that hard to train people in performing the simple mechanics of the job. For example, take Ibanking. The truth is, it's not that hard to train somebody to become an MSExcel jockey or learn all of the other specific tasks that are necessary to become an analyst. That's why the Ibanks can hire lots of Ivy-caliber humanities students and train them to become banking analysts. What is very hard to teach (in fact, practically impossible) are the work ethic and the raw intellectual talent. If somebody just doesn't want to work hard and/or isn't particularly bright, you can't really do anything about that. </p>
<p>That's coupled with the fact that the vast majority of what you learn in college, you will never use. This is true even in engineering, which is a highly vocational field. Most of the specific things you study within an engneering curriculum, you will never actually use on your job. An engineering curriculum almost inevitabl breaks down into equation after equation after equation - in effect, something like applied math. Engineering exams often times involve nothing more than deriving a whole long series of hand-calculated calculus equations. But you don't do that on an engineering job. </p>
<p>For example, I strongly remember taking an engineering summer internship where I was asked to remind one of the engineers how to do basic calculus, because he wanted help his daughter with her calculus homework and then he realized that he had forgotten how to do it himself. This is a guy who has a PhD in engineering and over a decade in engineering work experience. So clearly, at one point in his life, he knew all that stuff. But after working for a long time, he forgot it all, because he never used it ever again. </p>
<p>What does get used are the abilities to think logically and coherently as well as the general work ethic. But these abilities are easily translateable into a field like banking.</p>
<p>Now, as you actually build true work experience in a particular field, THAT is difficult to replicate, and is also highly useful to that specific field but not easily translateable. Hence, a guy with 20 years of banking experience could not be expected to replace a guy with 20 years of engineering experience or vice versa. However, a good education is supposed to be highly portable and translateable.</p>
<p>Polo08816: I wouldn't say that a higher percentage of engineers make it...if you look at most firms the people that form the management team are mainly people who either made a switch from consulting, banking, or rose up the ranks of other functions (finance, legal, etc.) at their firms. Engineers/Scientists tend to make it to management in tech./med. related firms but if you notice they end up more as CTOs, etc. than anything else. </p>
<p>In my opinion, engineers have trouble switching over into management positions not because they lack intelligence or technical knowledge but because they lack people skills and business skills.</p>
<p>"Getting the actual offer takes a certain personality and certain 'look' that a lot of people simply don't have."</p>
<p>So do investment banks prefer the kids who wear expensive suits+gucci shoes?</p>
<p>Do cocky fratboy type of people have a better chance at getting offers?</p>
<p>Are glasses a major turndown?</p>
<p>I think it's fair to say that physical unattractive, unfit (physically) applicants are at a substantial disadvantage. </p>
<p>Yes it is that superficial.</p>