WSJ: "If you're a high math student in America... it's crazy to go into STEM"

[sakky]

<p>

1. Need to move near the Washington DC area</p>

<p>2) If presented, take a job in which the employer will sponsor you for a security clearance. What you want is the Top Secret/SCI with Full-Scope polygraph. The major players are NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA and NRO.</p>

<p>3) Make sure your credit, finances, police record is in order. Ummm…you may wanna get rid of any international romances.</p>

<p>4) Have to be willing to allow folks to pretty much dive into your life history</p>

<p>5) Maintain your clearance</p>

<p>6) Stay ahead of the technology curve.</p>

<p>Now I would recommend having some private-sector experience before contracting to the Feds. Private-Sector work kind of molds you into being a self-starter and you will probably be ahead of the technology curve as compared to the Feds, so once you start working and supporting the Feds, you will stand out more.</p>

<p>7) Pledge to be a lifetime student. Whenever that a new technology is getting “hot”…learn it. Buy the necessary books, white-papers, etc and that PC and lock yourself in the home-office or basement for the weekend.

</p>

<p>Now we’re getting somewhere. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem as if we’re getting far enough, as it seems as if steps 2-5 you recommend actually hinge upon the key step of #2 - which natch raises the key question: how do you actually get hired by an employer who is willing to sponsor you for a security clearance?. That is to say, what are the actionable, but non-obvious steps somebody can reasonable take to find such an employer who will sponsor them? I think most readers of this board would especially like to hear how somebody with a non-CS STEM degree can nevertheless find an employer who will sponsor them for a clearance, but if all you can do is provide advice about how a CS graduate can obtain a clearance, well, that’s better than nothing. But again, the advice has to be actionable but non-obvious. </p>

<p>Your steps 6 and 7, I’m afraid to say, are obvious. As a simple test of obviousness, ask yourself would anybody seriously attempt to argue the opposite side? That is to say, would anybody actually argue that you should stay behind on the technology curve, or that you should refuse to learn hot technologies? If the answer is ‘no’, then the steps are obvious and hence not useful advice. </p>

<p>Globaltraveler, I give you credit for trying, but I think the task put before you is itself non-obvious. After all, there must be reasons why most engineers and CS graduates make a median salary of only $70-100k. Maybe some of them are foolish and simply don’t understand even obvious advice. Maybe some of them are lazy. But I suspect that many of them are quite savvy about their career and hence one wonders why they are unable to find ways to make more.</p>

<p>

1. Need to move near the Washington DC area

</p>

<p>According to the BLS, the average salary of computer occupations in the Washington DC/ Arlington/Alexandria ranged from $80-110 k - nowhere near the $130-200k range that you cited. I’m sure that most of them would prefer to make more money in a cushy job. What are they doing wrong, and what advice can you give them?</p>

<p><a href=“Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV - May 2022 OEWS Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates”>Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV - May 2022 OEWS Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates;

<p>Now, granted, maybe you could argue that they lack security clearances. But that gets to what I asked before: what are the actionable but non-obvious steps they could take to obtain clearances?</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I believe that somebody whose job it is to write (espeically for the WSJ) should be aware of semantics. Several terms are being used too losely for inclusion in a piece about statistics and trends. “Profession” for example: it seems to be defined as any job that requires specific training such as engineering or nursing in one part of a sentence and as one of the well respected offical professions that require a graduate degree in another part of the same sentence. That is a problem for me!

</p>

<p>Look, at the end of the day, I don’t think anybody - not the WSJ and certainly not me - is arguing that engineering is not a ‘profession’. </p>

<p>

Or “Consultant”. I’m not complete sure what your defination of a consultant is. Mine involves people who come into a work place on a temporary basis and are generally paid by 1099. The first consultants I think of are my college professors who all had consulting gigs on the side to keep them connected to industry and up to date. Those professors would have been engineers. Yet when you use the term you seem to be saying that a consultant is not an engineer. So what exactly is your idea of what a consultant does? Until it is defined I will continue to object to its sloppy use.

</p>

<p>I use the term consultant in the colloquial term that is often times invoked here on CC. But if you prefer a more precise term, then we could say “strategy/management consultant”, or specifically, a person working for one of the major strategy firms such as McKinsey, BCG, Bain, and the like. </p>

<p>The upshot is that many top engineering students from the top schools choose to never work as engineers at all, but instead choose to directly enter finance or strategy consulting right after undergrad. The question then is - why?</p>

[al6200]

<p><a href=“who%20has%20an%20agreement%20with%20NSA%20to%20allow%20many%20cleared%20folks%20in%20the%20area%20to%20get%20M.S.%20degrees%20and%20I%20KNOW%20many%20of%20them%20are%20from%20smaller%20schools%20and/or%20sub-3.0%20GPA’s”>quote</a>.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is generally the case that full-pay masters programs are not that competitive. Also, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab has a masters program.</p>

[GLOBALTRAVELER]

<p>@Sally</p>

<p>You have to realize two about working in the cleared world:</p>

<p>1) Not everyone will qualify for a clearance
2) Some folks don’t even want to go through the process</p>

<p>You have to pretty much open you life up to a bunch of strangers who dive into every detail of your life. Your credit has to be maintained. No felonies and no DWIs…and you better have some YEARS since you smoked weed.</p>

<p>Add to that, you will have to ask when you can leave the country and even if you are allowed to enter that country. Too a lot of people who value their unlimited personal freedom, clearances are too much of a hassle.</p>

<p>I will be back later to explain some paths to obtain a clearance.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

You have to pretty much open you life up to a bunch of strangers who dive into every detail of your life. Your credit has to be maintained. No felonies and no DWIs…and you better have some YEARS since you smoked weed.</p>

<p>Add to that, you will have to ask when you can leave the country and even if you are allowed to enter that country. Too a lot of people who value their unlimited personal freedom, clearances are too much of a hassle.

</p>

<p>I don’t think any of these requirements are deal-breakers for most American college students (except maybe for the weed). And surely many of them would strongly prefer a cushy job that might eventually pay them up to $200k, rather than the mediocre jobs they can obtain now (or, for many of them, no job at all). </p>

<p>So I think many of the readers here will be anxiously waiting your return to detail some actionable but non-obvious steps they can take to obtain security clearances and cushy 6-figure jobs.</p>

[GLOBALTRAVELER]

<p>@Sakky</p>

<p>Sorry for typing Sally. That is what happens when you type on a phone instead of a keyboard.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

@sakky:</p>

<p>GLOBALTRAVELER’s one song on these boards is that if you’re in software and not working for the government with a security clearance, you’re a sucker because you could be making $200k. My list of issues with this is the following: first, I doubt it’s as easy or frequent as he lets on; second, I’d gladly take a 50% pay cut not to have the government as my employer.

</p>

<p>Well, aegrisomnia, in globaltraveler’s defense, at least he’s honestly trying to provide useful advice to STEM graduates (or at least CS graduates) who are not being paid the salaries that they probably deserve. I agree with you that ultimately he may not fulfill all of the conditions of actionable, non-obvious advice. But at least he’s putting in the effort. Plenty of other posters don’t even bother to put in the effort but rather resort only to palavers (Study hard!, Get higher grades!, Be passionate!) while some seem incensed at the very notion that STEM graduates deserve more pay.</p>

<p>To be clear, palavers may be useful as a reminder tool along with being a source of inspiration. So for those posters who can only offer palavers, so be it. But those posters who truly want to be useful need provide advice that is actionable and non-obvious.</p>

[Dreburden]

<p>Sakky, I’m glad that you put this challenge to so many posters on this board. As a student who lurked this forum for quite some time, I have to thank posters like yourself and Global Traveler, as your contributions have helped me discover my field of study. So much of what is posted on here is either repetitive and obvious or just plain hearsay. When somebody like Global Traveler posts novel, helpful information, it reminds me of why I continue to read and post. Thanks! Hope you and others like yourself keep contributing to the community</p>

[GLOBALTRAVELER]

<p>Getting a security clearance….there are basically 3 ways.</p>

<p>1) One way to start the process of obtaining a security clearance is to be approached by a recruiter of a firm or a headhunter who represents a firm. The firm is a DoD contractor. If a recruiter is approaching you and knowing that you work in the private sector, chances are that the position involves a company that is actually willing to submit you into the security clearance process. THEY KNOW this may take 6 to 12 months, depending on the clearance level.</p>

<p>2) Another way is applying for a position with phrases like “willing to be processed for a security clearance”. This means that the position will require a security clearance and the employer will submit you like in the first example.</p>

<p>For examples 1 & 2, the trend now is stay at your current employer until your clearance is finished and granted (called adjudicated). Back “in the day”, more employers would hire you and still pay you as an employee until your clearance was processed. Although that still happens today, it is not as common as employers don’t want to pay salaries only to find out someone was denied…better for the applicant to just stay at their current job while being processed.</p>

<p>3) The third was is like 1 or 2 except that an applicant is already an employee of a company. If they have the desired skill set and if the employer is willing to wait for clearance processing, then the employee will be submitted for clearance processing. This can be initiated either by some manager (or internal recruiter) approaching the employee or the employee applying for a cleared position.</p>

<p>Clearance Types/Levels, etc</p>

<p>The most common types of security clearances for most DoD work are as follows:</p>

<p>Secret
Top Secret
Top Secret/SCI
Top Secret/SCI with CI Polygraph
Top Secret/SCI with Full-Scope Polygraph</p>

<p>Of course salaries, billing rates are determined by the clearance type with Top Secret/SCI with Full-Scope Polygraph paying the most (and of course having access to more sensitive information). Clearance processing time also varies as a Secret clearance is not much more than a credit/criminal check and 5 years background check whereas the TS/SCI+Poly may go back 10-15 years along with revealing family background, family contacts, foreign travels and foreign national contacts. A Secret clearance can be processed in a little as 6 months and a TS/SCI+Poly can take up to 18 months.</p>

<p>Now you may ask…”Why aren’t a bunch of folks doing this?”. Well there are a bunch of possible reasons:</p>

<p>1) Like someone mentioned earlier, some folks do not like to do government-related work
2) Federal Government positions (even with clearances) may not pay much more than private sector
3) Contracting (which pays the most) can be too volatile and may involve changing employers more
4) The Feds are usually behind the technology curve as compared to private sector
5) The clearance process involves too much release of private information and of private life</p>

<p>I would say that you really see the salaries I mentioned with the TS/SCI+Polys with the Full-Scope paying the most. I could ACTUALLY see some top software engineers in the private sector ignoring a cleared position that is only offering a TS (no SCI and no Poly) because the bump in pay is not worth the headache of paperwork and revealing of private life. Now what many of them fail to realize is that once you have a TS, you could apply for a job or be approach for a job to get a higher clearance.</p>

<p>Probably the single most attractive attribute to doing cleared work is JOB SECURITY. As long as the USA has enemies, you will need national security and therefore work to support national security. What some folks think (usually older and more experienced engineers) is that they rather have a steady almost-guaranteed good-to-great income than great income that is subject to the USA economy because even if a recession, the NSA’s, CIA’s, FBI’s, NRO’s, DIA’s will still have funding earmarked for them.</p>

<p>Also, for many older engineers (like myself), cleared work, especially if obtaining a TS/SCI with Full-Scope Poly and being a contractor can be very appealing because:</p>

<p>1) You are either making the same and probably much more doing “grunt engineering” work than in the private sector. For the equivalent income in the private sector, an experienced software/I.T. engineer probably have to be some “Director of I.T.” or “Director of Engineering” with 50 to 100 folks reporting to him/her. We all know that “director” type jobs require long hours, etc. For cleared work, you are doing work with nobody reporting to you and probably barely working an 8-hour day.</p>

<p>2) You are moving at “gubment pace”. Since there is no “profit line” to meet, you will usually have less stress. Less stress + job security for the same or more money is not a bad trade-off for not working with the latest technology.</p>

<p>Hell, I remember working in the private sector and doing whatever I needed to do in designing data warehouses and extracted data and reports were needed by the regional VP or whoever. You could not leave work until it was done because that same regional VP was staying late too. While I still liked that part of my career, I was much younger so with the Fed contracting, I welcome it at my older age.</p>

[sakky]

<p>Globaltraveler, I appreciate the effort, but I’m afraid I have to say that your steps, while perhaps not obvious, are not really actionable. Step 1 in particularly is clearly not actionable - surely we all wish that we could be approached by a company that would offer a clearance. That’s like saying that we should just wait until we are asked out on a date by Scarlett Johansson (or for the female readership, it’s like waiting to be asked out by Ryan Reynolds). For most people here, they’ll be Waiting for Godot. </p>

<p>Step 2 is about as close to actionable as you’ve come, although I strongly suspect that that’s not a realistic actionable step for the vast majority of new college graduates even in CS, let alone in other STEM majors. I certainly don’t seem to recall many clearance-potential positions available in on-campus recruiting, and I suspect most other readers here would concur. Furthermore, it seems as if step #2 implies that you already have a job, which, again, is of little help to the new college graduate. {That is, unless you’re advocating that he find some ‘temporary job’ to wait out the clearance adjudication process which can take up to 18 months upon which you still might be denied the clearance.}</p>

<p>And #3, like you said, is just a combination of 1 and 2. </p>

<p>What I can distill from your advice is that if you are able to complete any of steps 1 or 2, then you may be able to obtain a clearance. But that only moves the goalposts; the next question then is, what are the actionable but non-obvious steps that would allow a new college graduate to successfully complete steps 1 or 2? </p>

<p>To make the example concrete, let’s take a new mechanical engineering graduate. What steps should he take to maximize his chances of reaching that promised land of a $200k job with excellent job security and low stress? {Perhaps your advice would entail immediately quitting mechanical engineering and learning software/ IT skills?}</p>

[GLOBALTRAVELER]

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>$200K is not going come right of of school. You would need 15-20 years of experience plus a proven track record on various government contracts. You would have to be pretty close to an expert in your field/sub-field.</p>

<p>I will say this. I know that NSA has summer interns running around as well as co-ops. Now how they got those positions, I don’t know but it “seems” to be some program or relationship with some of the local colleges, because I am always running into these U-Maryland or John Hopkins interns.</p>

<p>I thought the STEM question was merely telling new students NOT to get into engineering, etc. I was merely telling grads that THERE ARE outlets and engineering ones at that…not the ever-present thought of “you must do non-engineering to use your engineering degree.”</p>

<p>Now I cannot tell a ME grad and take up CS. For one, I do not enough of about the ME career to say anything. I will say that software engineering is…ummm…NICE. As I have stated, most of my experience was in private sector, BEFORE a clearance. I was doing contracting not long after undergrad…being sent out to support firms in the industries of pharmacueticals, insurance, worker’s comp and credit cards (Delaware).</p>

<p>To be honest, I would get some experience first, then looked into the cleared world as I think the invasion of private life, some of the rules and the pace/culture of government-related work may be more suited for an experience engineer than that fresh grad who wants to experience more things while having a little more freedom in lifestyle. Still, I wanted to present this as an option if some engineers want to look into it.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

$200K is not going come right of of school. You would need 15-20 years of experience plus a proven track record on various government contracts. You would have to be pretty close to an expert in your field/sub-field.

</p>

<p>True enough, and I never said that you would obtain that right out of undergrad. </p>

<p>On the other hand, the truth is, the vast majority of STEM graduates will never make $200k a year, regardless of how much experience and expertise they amass. </p>

<p>

I thought the STEM question was merely telling new students NOT to get into engineering, etc. I was merely telling grads that THERE ARE outlets and engineering ones at that…not the ever-present thought of “you must do non-engineering to use your engineering degree.”

</p>

<p>That is indeed what the article stated, and I too have been racking my brain trying to come up with determine some outlets by which STEM graduates - especially non-CS graduates - can obtain the high salaries they deserve with cushy lifestyles, while allowing them to remain in STEM. Unfortunately, I can’t come up with much, and it seems that neither can you. Note, that’s not a knock on you (for like I said, I don’t have many good answers either), but rather speaks to the sheer difficulty of the problem and is indicative of why so many STEM graduates leave the discipline. Like it or not, we seem to live in a society where consulting and finance are more valued than science and engineering. </p>

<p>

I will say this. I know that NSA has summer interns running around as well as co-ops. Now how they got those positions, I don’t know but it “seems” to be some program or relationship with some of the local colleges, because I am always running into these U-Maryland or John Hopkins interns.

</p>

<p>Well, in that case, that doesn’t seem to be a particularly actionable strategy for the overwhelming majority of college students who don’t attend a university in the Washington area. {Although perhaps your advice would then be to immediately transfer to such a university.} </p>

<p>

For one, I do not enough of about the ME career to say anything. I will say that software engineering is…ummm…NICE.

</p>

<p>I’ve heard software engineering being described by numerous terms, but rarely as ‘nice’. I routinely hear such terms as ‘offshore-able’, or ‘lack of a long-term future’ (which may be intertwined with ‘offshore-able’). </p>

<p>Now, I suspect you will say that the security clearance will shield any software engineer from the dangers of offshoring. If that is the case, then CS programs, rather than obsessing about teaching the latest theory, should instead spend more time finding employers for their (American) students that can provide clearances.</p>

[JamesMadison]

<p>An average engineering student can get a good salary.
But only a very top student in finance/business is going to get those top salaries. The starting salary for a business major is $41,000 and mid-career is $70k. </p>

<p>I am going to make more, coming out next year with an MS in EE, than the average business major will make, 15 years after they graduate. Its not <em>that</em> unfair.</p>

[sakky]

<p>Well, frankly speaking, the average business major, is simply not that talented or hard-working. Let’s face it - at many (probably most) schools, the business major is a creampuff major populated largely by students who are more interested in partying and socializing than in studying. </p>

<p>The relevant question is, given the considerable talents and (especially) work ethic of a STEM graduate (relative to the average college graduate), where is he most likely to earn the most? Sadly it seems as if he may be better off leveraging his abilities in a non-STEM position. Or, put another way, STEM-specific employers take highly talented and industrious STEM graduates…and then relegate them to lower pay and opportunities than their capabilities may dictate. </p>

<p>In a surely galling case in point, I know some STEM graduates who turned down low-paying jobs at engineering firms for higher-paying consulting positions, only to be assigned to those very same engineering firms as consulting clients. Hence, those firms pay a large premium for the very same people. Why not just offer them higher starting salaries in the first place rather than pay a premium to gain access to them through a consulting-firm middleman? {I can anticipate the response: what the engineering firm is truly paying for is access to the McK/Bain/BCG/Booz brand name, and cares little that the consultants they hire are the very same people that they refused to compete to hire as employees.}</p>

[jack63]

<p>Sakky post interesting stuff, however I’ve always have trouble with it and think it misses some of the complexities of the engineering profession and casts a negative light on the profession.</p>

<p>As for the original articles, I think they miss some key points…</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Price of living: Engineers get jobs all over. Sometimes in companies in the middle of nowhere with a lower standard of living. Managerial jobs are more likely to be in large cities where the pay needs to be better because of the higher standared of living.</p></li>
<li><p>The comparison between and undergrad going into a STEM field vs. and undergrad going into management is not always and apples to apples comparison. The managment tracks almost always require an advanced degree(an MBA), that the employee often gets part time, so in a sense you should be comparing engineers with advanced degrees(PhD or Masters) with the students going into the management track. From my understanding of the engineering track, a PhD in engineering will probably even out the pay differences. Also, the role of a PhD in engineering and business manager, whether in academia or running you own business often blurs.</p></li>
</ol>

[JamesMadison]

<p>

@sakky

The relevant question is, given the considerable talents and (especially) work ethic of a STEM graduate (relative to the average college graduate), where is he most likely to earn the most? Sadly it seems as if he may be better off leveraging his abilities in a non-STEM position.

</p>

<p>I doubt there is really anything that exceptional about engineering students from the university of south montana, for instance.</p>

<p>The discussion is mainly focused on those engineering graduates from top universities such as Stanford, Cornell, MIT, etc. They are the only ones who really stand a chance to get poached into the consulting/finance world. </p>

<p>And I think, the bottom line is that, the industry dictates that a newly-minted stanford engineer is not really that much more productive than one from montana. Like we were discussing last time, there is really not that much creativity in huge bureaucratic companies such as HP and IBM. </p>

<p>The problem lies as much with the engineering world as it does with public policy. I always wonder: why are engineering companies structured such that students from MIT are only marginally more productive than those from 3rd-tier universities?</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I doubt there is really anything that exceptional about engineering students from the university of south montana, for instance.

</p>

<p>They’re surely more exceptional than the average liberal arts or business graduate from the University of South Montana. </p>

<p>

And I think, the bottom line is that, the industry dictates that a newly-minted stanford engineer is not really that much more productive than one from montana. Like we were discussing last time, there is really not that much creativity in huge bureaucratic companies such as HP and IBM.

</p>

<p>I’m afraid I must diametrically disagree: HP and IBM are among some of the most innovative firms in the world. Granted, they may not be as highly innovative on a per-employee basis as startups are, but they nevertheless are able to deliver substantial levels of innovation. As a case in point, IBM built Watson, the reigning champion of jeopardy. They built the first computer to beat the world chess champion. These are landmark achievements in the field of computing. IBM occupies numerous positions within the top 500 ranking of most powerful supercomputers in the world. Heck, IBM is working on the Blue Brain project whose goal is to develop a complete simulation of the human brain on a molecular level, which they hope to accomplish by the end of the decade. </p>

<p>Let’s also keep in mind that the innovation that we attribute to startups is a deeply biased sample. The vast majority of startups never succeed in innovating and nobody notices them because they die silently. We only notice those startups who happen to produce successful innovation. It is therefore unclear whether average level of innovation across all startups (including those who die silently and quietly) significantly exceeds that of the behemoths. </p>

<p>Nevertheless, I suspect that the behemoths, given their large engineering populations, must have some engineers who are indeed extremely innovative and productive. IBM was already one of the largest companies in the world by the 1930’s, yet continued to produce some of the most important tech innovations in world history, such as the mainframe computer, the PC, the relational database, and RISC architecture, which must have meant that they had numerous highly innovative and productive engineers.</p>

<p>But they weren’t paid particularly well. The question then is - why?</p>

[sakky]

<p>

1. Price of living: Engineers get jobs all over. Sometimes in companies in the middle of nowhere with a lower standard of living. Managerial jobs are more likely to be in large cities where the pay needs to be better because of the higher standared of living.

</p>

<p>I actually find that to be a two-way street, because the reason why large cities tend to be expensive is that they are highly desirable places to live. After all, if truly nobody wanted to live in those cities, the cost of living would surely decline. On the other hand, the cost of living in the middle of nowhere is cheap because, frankly, people don’t really want to be there. Cities can charge more for living costs because they offer a bevy of opportunities such as a variety of jobs, entertainment, educational opportunities, and public transit that are not available in the middle of nowhere. </p>

<p>Yet the fact is, many major cities have lost the industrial production bases upon which they were originally founded and have become business services and entertainment headquarters. Many engineers find it difficult to work in major cities. </p>

<p>Take New York City. While you might not think New York is a desirable place to live, the fact is, many Americans do, which is why it is the most populous city in the nation. But you can’t easily find a job as a mechanical engineer in New York, for New York has very little manufacturing and heavy industry. If you want to pursue a career as a mechanical engineer, you probably have to leave New York. The same could be said for Boston, Washington, and other post-industrial cities. Again, these are not a bunch of undesirable locations in the middle of nowhere, rather, they’re some of the most popular places in the country.</p>

[JamesMadison]

<p>Just because IBM and HP have done amazing things, that does not mean they are innovating on a per-employee basis. Having worked at IBM, I can attest to that, for sure. “Just shut up and write your perl scripts”. </p>

<p>Again, it is clear from the salary information that engineering companies are not willing to pay a premium for top talent. Because most engineering work is, in reality, not that glamorous or groundbreaking.</p>

<p>Sure, it is cool that some guy at Microsoft is working on Internet Explorer. But, if it takes 500 people to upgrade Internet Explorer from version 8 to 9 (and no one can tell the difference anyway), how much did that guy really do?</p>

[ken285]

<p>

I actually find that to be a two-way street, because the reason why large cities tend to be expensive is that they are highly desirable places to live. After all, if truly nobody wanted to live in those cities, the cost of living would surely decline. On the other hand, the cost of living in the middle of nowhere is cheap because, frankly, people don’t really want to be there.

</p>

<p>A New York Times article from earlier this year appears to support this: <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/nyregion/ubs-may-move-back-to-manhattan-from-stamford.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/nyregion/ubs-may-move-back-to-manhattan-from-stamford.html&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;