It's not what you know, but who you know

What high paying jobs (finance or not) have the least of the above BS, both in terms of getting in, and advancing in your career? What jobs have minimal to no emphasis on schmoozing/personality and are almost completely dependent on your intellect? For example, IBD and PE decidedly do not qualify. Algo trading is the only one I can think of so far, help me out here please.

 

It doesn't have to be in banking or finance.

<span class=keyword_link><a href=//www.wallstreetoasis.com/finance-dictionary/what-is-london-interbank-offer-rate-libor>LIBOR</a></span>:
This list will be short.

And yes, that was what I was afraid of.

 

Put it this way: unless you're locked in a room to work by yourself, then you will need to be a tolerable person for anyone to want to work with you. Even then, you'll have to come across as normal in electronic communication. Very few assholes are talented enough to be put up with by other talented people. You don't have to be the guy from the Dos Equis commercials, but you need to be likeable.

I used to have a similar attitude to you. It's not that I'm a huge douche, I wanted to be in a field where I was judged on my "real skills" as opposed to my "soft skills". But ask yourself this: "If I'm competent, then why can't I compete on both fronts?" The answer is you SHOULD, unless you just don't like socializing and striving to be a respected and liked (different things) person. Are you a robot or something?

 

Jeez, I think any job where human beings are making decisions are going to have a human element (aka networking, smoozing, ect). Dude, why are you so anti making friends? Just send an email to people and they will help you. It isnt that hard.

I think the better question is, who wants to work with someone who is so against pretty common social interactions? Try being a computer programmer. I will buy you your 1st jar of Vaseline as a gift.

 
AnthonyD1982:
Jeez, I think any job where human beings are making decisions are going to have a human element (aka networking, smoozing, ect). Dude, why are you so anti making friends? Just send an email to people and they will help you. It isnt that hard.

I think the better question is, who wants to work with someone who is so against pretty common social interactions? Try being a computer programmer. I will buy you your 1st jar of Vaseline as a gift.

someones got a lot of hatred in him lol

I suppose everything runs into diminishing returns, you'll generally need both social and intellectual abilities, with different preference weighting on both, and the more you move into either extreme the rarer suitable roles become. We should maybe widen the criteria to relatively little sales skills as such, theres a difference between getting along well with people and being excellent at selling(which I feel is the bullshitting part OP is referring to)

 
AnthonyD1982:
Jeez, I think any job where human beings are making decisions are going to have a human element (aka networking, smoozing, ect). Dude, why are you so anti making friends? Just send an email to people and they will help you. It isnt that hard.
IMHO, there's a give-and-take between a focus on friends and competence. Both are important, but they tend to come at the cost of the other. If you spend all your time cultivating relationships, you have less time to become good at what you do. If you spend all your time developing your skill, you don't have time to develop relationships.

My take on it is that business relationships are important, but they should be genuine and rooted in competence which leads to value. In order for them to truly be win-win, you need to be competent and know what the heck you're doing. So my take on it is that the social skills and the relationship are the garnish, but the competence is the meat. Both are important, but if I've truly got my internal clients' best interests at heart- if I want to be worthy of the relationship with them, I should believe it's better to be competent and socially awkward than it is to be the other way around. Just like it's better to serve up grilled chicken for dinner without any sort of adornment than it is to serve up parsley and garlic-butter sauce without a steak.

I think the better question is, who wants to work with someone who is so against pretty common social interactions? Try being a computer programmer.
Again, it's not that you're against social interactions; it's a balancing act. As a quant developer, I have to work with people all the time. The good news is that when there's a heavy focus on competence, you're almost always working with people you respect; it's easier for me to work with people I either like or respect, and that makes the social interaction a lot easier.

Every field requires a certain degree of competence and a certain degree of being able to work with other people, but the relative focus changes. In I-Banking, it might be Relationships: 10, Competence 5:. In liquid markets trading, it might be Relationships: 4, Competence: 10. In research, it might be 7&7. Quant Technology might be Relationships: 5.5, Competence: 9.3. (Us quant programmers can be very OCD about numbers, hence the extra decimal point. :D.)

Both are important, but assuming you've got the baseline social skills to survive on your own in society, the most important thing in any job is to have a baseline level of competence to take care of the people who depend on you.

 

If you don't like the talking to people and networking, FO probably isn't for you. You can also plan on not working in Medicine or Law, well actually medicine you should be fine. Just know how to play golf. And I don't see why people have a problem with networking. You get to meet a lot of interesting people, and what's more you have the opportunity to show people that you're halfway intelligent. May lead to job offers in the future.

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer "Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee
 
mas1987:
If you don't like the talking to people and networking, FO probably isn't for you. You can also plan on not working in Medicine or Law, well actually medicine you should be fine. Just know how to play golf. And I don't see why people have a problem with networking. You get to meet a lot of interesting people, and what's more you have the opportunity to show people that you're halfway intelligent. May lead to job offers in the future.

Medicine has more shmoozing, golf etc. than IB, to get in you need to nail your interviews, in your 3rd and 4th years you'll be working with residents, terns and attendings and reporting to them. You will work aside nurses, PAs, RTs, Social workers etc. You have to be nice to do well, plus be nice to the ancillaries and you can find out what one does in the on-call room. Intern year is the same except you're more dependent on your fellow terns. As you move up you will have to teach those beneath you and kiss the asses of those above you, the same in fellowship. As an attending you will need to deal with patients unless you're in rads, path, gen surg, nuclear med, or nsx. You will need to deal with colleagues, patients and staff. Also if you want to go join a good group or go solo you need to be nice.

 

No hate man, but people are what makes the world go round. I feel bad for this dude that is obviously trying to withdraw from these crucial interactions. Common, is sending an email and having a conversation with someone who you do not know, but share a common bond with that bad? How on earth do you make friends? Helping people and being helped are some of the most enriching things possible. Just be earnest and polite and people will help.

OP, you are way too young to start looking for a dark cubicle to hid in. Give networking another chance. Just about every field I can think of involves interactions and interpersonal things. You might be able to get a job on pure talent and hide away, but how do you think you get raises, promotions, other assignments?

 

The crux of this issue is that people arguing either side are biased. You will get people that are more competent than socially inclined, who will put competency over anything, and then you get people that are more socially inclined than competent and then put that over everything.

This at times gets ugly when either side has alot of bitterness in them due to lack of skills in either area(i.e. the vaseline comment).

Before further discussion we need to distinguish between social ability and introversion.

There are many people who are perfectly friendly and likeable, they still have an introverted personality and will not be the guy thats the center of attention.You can work perfectly well together with those people, but they would not sell your products very well.

To work in any job you need to be socially functional enough to be somewhat likeable and not a total dick to the people you work with(unless your a genius and can get away with anything, i.e. Dr. House, yes hes just a tv show character but illustrates a concept well).

For certain jobs you need to be more extroverted as it involves building relationships with many new people, and or selling effectively.

A society that prioritzes relationships over everything is extremely inefficient and will eventually fuck up big time, as we can see in Greece now. This is what I feel OP is referring too, when people are preferred for being best buddies rather than competent on the job. Being best buddies with someone also is not necessarily a function of being socially adept. If out of two salesmen, the worse is chosen because he is best buddies with the chooser, that is inefficient as well.

The relationship based choice is also unmeritocratic and I am surprised to see so much love for it on an american forum. The moment its who you know becomes more important than your competence meritocracy goes out of the window since family connections become vital.

 
streetn:
The crux of this issue is that people arguing either side are biased. You will get people that are more competent than socially inclined, who will put competency over anything, and then you get people that are more socially inclined than competent and then put that over everything.

This at times gets ugly when either side has alot of bitterness in them due to lack of skills in either area(i.e. the vaseline comment).

I think it was meant in jest, and the old saying is that if you can't laugh at yourself, you're missing the joke! If Anthony had any real bitterness about programmers and BOFHs, we wouldn't be exchanging PMs. (See above links posted to find a LSO-like article series on bastard programmers. You'll look at us a whole lot more suspiciously the next time a hard drive fails right before you need to deliver an important presentation.)
To work in any job you need to be socially functional enough to be somewhat likeable and not a total dick to the people you work with(unless your a genius and can get away with anything, i.e. Dr. House, yes hes just a tv show character but illustrates a concept well).
Exactly. For 90% of jobs out there, the social skills required are the same as those required for a minimum wage job.
A society that prioritzes relationships over everything is extremely inefficient and will eventually fuck up big time, as we can see in Greece now. This is what I feel OP is referring too, when people are preferred for being best buddies rather than competent on the job. Being best buddies with someone also is not necessarily a function of being socially adept. If out of two salesmen, the worse is chosen because he is best buddies with the chooser, that is inefficient as well.
Or Chicago/New Jersey politics.
The relationship based choice is also unmeritocratic and I am surprised to see so much love for it on an american forum. The moment its who you know becomes more important than your competence meritocracy goes out of the window since family connections become vital.
Agree.

My view is that your social skills/sales abilities need to keep up with your competence so you can effectively sell your competencies, but the competencies are what create the intrinsic value.

 

there's more schmoozing in S&T than you'd think, at least for certain products.

i agree about computer programmers, though.

there is much much less 'who you know' in getting hired into a top law firm. and a lot of lawyers/people in law school are socially dysfunctional. however, at the top ranks, you have to be a people person. i know someone who made partner at a decent-sized firm who was bumped down to non-equity partner because he didn't like selling.

 
prospie:
there's more schmoozing in S&T than you'd think, at least for certain products.
Absolutely- particularly in sales. That said, there are a number of traders who are totally and unabashedly introverted. Other traders can get away with being jerks. A lot of quants and research guys are introverted, too; basically, you've got the whole spectrum in markets- outside of sales.
i agree about computer programmers, though.
The irony is that most programmers at a typical bank are just as extroverted as everyone else in markets. A typical financial programmer has gotta work with six or seven different groups, negotiate with people every time they want something even at the analyst/associate level AND still get all the work done competently.
Wouldn't all quant jobs qualify ? why would they care about your ability to bs ? you're just an egghead who'll sit behind a computer all day
And the irony is that these "eggheads" make more $$ per hour than just about everyone except the most successful traders (who are also probably eggheaded quant traders.)

Folks; what your parents told you is wrong. Competence is MUCH more important than social skills when it comes to getting a good job. Both are important, but the nerds make more money than the football players.

 

Its funny that you would mention that. An executive at Morgan Stanley told me that today actually when talking about my chances with their company . Although I was already well aware of this, my jaw almost dropped, and even though the conversation turned out well in the end it was still a shocker to hear that said so bluntly. I thought he was trying to test me, so assuming that I would somehow have a minuscule chance of getting my foot in the door and a stab at an internship, I told him that I did not care if I knew no one, I was still willing to do whatever it takes to get an internship at MS. Long story short, I got a business card telling me to call him when my resume is ready for next years spring and summer internships. ^.^

 

Wow, did this blow up or what. Two things:

  1. I don't suck at networking, and I don't hate social interactions. Don't get the wrong idea. What I dislike is the fact that it has become NECESSARY for one to do these things in order to break into most fields. Why can't we be judged solely based on competence and not on likability? After all, we are being paid to do a job, not to be liked. Or are we? I'm not so sure anymore.

(Side note: This is why I don't like salesmen or being sold to, or any sort of sales job. Just give me the facts, and I'll buy your product if I evaluate it and find that its merits justify the price I'm paying.)

This guy had it right:

laudrup:
I wanted to be in a field where I was judged on my "real skills" as opposed to my "soft skills". But ask yourself this: "If I'm competent, then why can't I compete on both fronts?"

The question is not "why can't I?" but "why should I have to?" It feels sleazy. I'll hang out with people because I like them, not because I need to for some job. There is a long list of things I would be more willing to endure than having to deal with certain types of people. Which brings me to my next point.

  1. AnthonyD1982:
    I will buy you your 1st jar of Vaseline as a gift.

If you thought this was hilarious, or if you would have high-fived someone in real life for saying that, you are one of the people I was referring to. No hate here. Everyone knows people they can't stand, and I'm sure you wouldn't be able to stand me either. And it does seem that these people are well represented in finance, even S&T. (Algo trading is not included here.)

From all the responses, it seems that short of inventing the next nuclear bomb or Google or Facebook, the type of job I'm looking for doesn't exist, huh?

All right. Flame away.

 

Getting the career you want is all about selling. You're selling yourself in an interview, to your superiors, on your internship, to the PE firm, the hedge fund, etc. Results are a part of it, but they want more than that. The same way you can't simply look at a balance sheet when you do a LBO (you want to meet the leadership of the company) , you can't do it with an interview candidate. You want to see that CEO/candidate is ambitious, that they're interested in the industry, you want to see some effort, see that this is someone who isn't just gonna get their job done, but someone who will get along well with his coworkers. This is the purpose of networking. Alums will stick their neck out for you for these very reasons above, not because you made 30% day trading.

So my advice to you, if you have a definite goal for where you want to end up, get some balls, suck it up, and go out there and sell yourself. Even if you feel sleazy.

 
IlliniProgrammer:
when there's a heavy focus on competence, you're almost always working with people you respect; it's easier for me to work with people I either like or respect, and that makes the social interaction a lot easier.

Ding. This hit the nail right on the head.

 
godot:
Ding. This hit the nail right on the head.
But I just want to quality that with the fact that there's competent people everywhere- particularly on the markets side of the bank. I've worked in banking for three years and met hundreds and hundreds of people, and it's hard to think of someone I've worked with in trading, research, quant development, or even sales whom I had trouble respecting because of a lack of competence.

IBD is pretty good, too. You find that at most investment banks, most people are at the top of their games. That requires a certain level of both social skill AND competence in most cases. In markets, more emhasis is on the competence; in IBD, more emphasis is on the social skills, but both are important and necessary for doing well.

The problem for me is that it seems arrogant to have more selling ability and "soft skills" than you have competence. A good product should be able to sell itself, and your ability at sales should merely keep up with your competence in other areas. When I make my sales pitch, it's always about specific competencies in my background that make me a good fit for the team. My experience in algorithms and working with fixed income products and knowing all of the features and traps, and how that can give them tools they might not have realized could give them a huge competitive advantage. In order to be worthy of a relationship where someone's paying you money, IMHO, you have to assume that the person on the other end is a rational guy who's more intelligent than you are. You have to honestly sell from your competencies and make sure that the guy has everything he needs to make a rational decision to either hire you or pick someone else.

Relationships that start that way are more likely to create value in the long run. So obviously, the way you improve your odds of getting into really good relationships that start that way is to focus on the competence and just make sure the social skills/selling ability keep up. That's just my apparently-not-so-humble but possibly incorrect take on things.

 

OK, I see a lot has occurred since I decided to go out and get drunk.

1) No offense meant for Computer Programmers, I was imagining more of a tech support, programmer, office space type tech guy when I made the comment. Even those guys need to be social. Plain fact is just about everything in life comes down to being able to make connections, etc.

2) Competence is key without a doubt. Networking will get you in and people will think that you are a nice dude, but if you are a moron they will stick you in a corner and make you get pizza. That being said, with the assumption that most college educated people are competent enough for banking, it really comes down to who do you want to spend 16-18 hours a day with.

3) People help those who they like, who have a common bond, who share something in common. This goes back to the start of humanity. I don't see it changing anytime soon.

4) If you went to Harvard and have a 4.0 then you don't have to network. You can apply online and get an interview and most likely a job. If you go to Florida State your going to have to kiss some ass.

 
AnthonyD1982:
OK, I see a lot has occurred since I decided to go out and get drunk.

1) No offense meant for Computer Programmers, I was imagining more of a tech support, programmer, office space type tech guy when I made the comment. Even those guys need to be social. Plain fact is just about everything in life comes down to being able to make connections, etc.

http://bofh.ntk.net/BOFH/0000/bastard03.php http://bofh.ntk.net/BOFH/index.php

MWAHAHAHA!!! Revenge of the antisocial nerds!

 

Firstly, The amount if stereotyping going on in this thread is just crazy! Secondly, some of you are discussing a completely different topic. The OP asked what jobs don't require ass-kissing. You guys are discussing which jobs don't require communication skills.

To address a few points, 1.) Programmers need a lot of communication and soft skills. There's this wrong idea here that programmers work individually without any communication. People work in groups to develop a part of product. You need to be able to communicate well not just with your own group members, but will other groups also. 2.) From my experience, ANY good job on wall street requires networking. What varies is to what extent networking can take you. For quant jobs, you definitely need to network to get that 1st round interview. Thereon, however, it's all merit based. In some other departments, you might be able to schmooze your way to a job. 3.) Lastly, I like the way things are. Networking helps identify people who're serious about finance. I would definitely like the kid who bothered to network with 2 MDs more than the kid who dropped a resume off, provided both have comparable qualifications.

 

Regardless of how smart you think you are, there are many people out there who are just as smart and have some people skills. They will get jobs instead of you.

Stay out of financial services if you don’t want to interact with people. Be an engineer scientist or, perhaps, actuary.

I’ve noticed that a lot of math and stats professors have incredibly bad personalities. Maybe you should get a math PhD and be a prof.

 
Stay out of financial services if you don’t want to interact with people. Be an engineer scientist or, perhaps, actuary.

I’ve noticed that a lot of math and stats professors have incredibly bad personalities. Maybe you should get a math PhD and be a prof.

That's not the point. The point is that the emphasis should be on competence. That's not to say you should have bad people skills; it's just that they're significantly less important than competence in many parts of the firm.

In Markets, if you create a lot of value for the firm and are relatively indispensable, you can get away with anything short of risking something that would cause a lawsuit for more than you're worth. The people skills required to be a moderately successful trader or quant developer in many areas of the firm are at about the same level as the people skills required to hold down many minimum wage jobs. Naturally, people where I work are generally stronger than that, but if you are content to earn mid-six-figures as a trader, there are plenty of places where you don't need to have a whole lot of really strong social skills- particularly if you don't deal with clients.

 
Buyside <span class=keyword_link><a href=https://www.e-junkie.com/ecom/gb.php?ii=1145861&amp;c=cart&amp;aff=44880&amp;ejc=2&amp;cl=175031 rel=nofollow>CFA</a></span>:
equity research?

Absolutely not! People skills may be even more important in ER than in IB. ER guys may be nerdy but they have to talk to people all the time – company insiders, competitors, customers, suppliers. They have to know companies and industries like the back of their hands. They do so by talking to insiders. The senior guys also have to sell their research to the buy side.

ah, i see, pardon my ignorance
 

Regarding social skills being ranked above or equal to competence, I think its just that you have to likable. I am sure no one likes those who try too hard and always seem to be schmoozing. But since you are going to spend so much time with your coworkers, especially in this industry, I will rather work with people who have common social sense and more importantly people that are genuine and those I can see forming good friendships with.

 

Thanks Illini. I'm not sure why people are misunderstanding what I mean. I reread what I wrote and don't think it was particularly misleading or convoluted.

Buyside <span class=keyword_link><a href=https://www.e-junkie.com/ecom/gb.php?ii=1145861&amp;c=cart&amp;aff=44880&amp;ejc=2&amp;cl=175031 rel=nofollow>CFA</a></span>:
Regardless of how smart you think you are, there are many people out there who are just as smart and have some people skills. They will get jobs instead of you.

I don't think I'm inordinately smart. In fact, nothing in my previous posts references intelligence at all. I was talking about competence and how well you can do a job. Although that may be correlated with intelligence, the two are distinct.

Something that might be helpful as a point of reference is Atlas Shrugged. The protagonists live by a code of competence and find any use of "pull" to be reprehensible. Yes, it is unrealistic. But all I'm asking is what kind of jobs approach that ideal.

 
godot:
Thanks Illini. I'm not sure why people are misunderstanding what I mean. I reread what I wrote and don't think it was particularly misleading or convoluted.
It's the typical knee-jerk reaction to someone saying something you think is valuable is worth significantly less than you think. I do it all the time, too. But I don't think social skills are quite as valuable in all areas of the firm as they are in IBD.
<span class=keyword_link><a href=/resources/skills/finance/buy-side>Buyside</a></span> <span class=keyword_link><a href=https://www.e-junkie.com/ecom/gb.php?ii=1145861&amp;c=cart&amp;aff=44880&amp;ejc=2&amp;cl=175031 rel=nofollow>CFA</a></span>:
I don't think I'm inordinately smart. In fact, nothing in my previous posts references intelligence at all. I was talking about competence and how well you can do a job. Although that may be correlated with intelligence, the two are distinct.

Something that might be helpful as a point of reference is Atlas Shrugged. The protagonists live by a code of competence and find any use of "pull" to be reprehensible. Yes, it is unrealistic. But all I'm asking is what kind of jobs approach that ideal.

Kudos on the Ayn Rand reference. She was a bit of an extreme libertarian for my liking, but I do think there is a three-way correlation between competence/self-sufficiency, a disdain for politics, and libertarianism.
 

Yeah I dont think anthony actually meant it, its just a nice direct illustration of my point :p No offence anthony

On the intrinsic value, theres actually quite an interesting observation to be made when looking at Europe(I cant really comment on the states). There is a clear negative correlation between output, efficiency and relationship based societies.

What I mean is compare Southern Italy, Romania, Greece to Germany/Switzerland/Austria (and Nordic countries, altough my knowledge on them is more limited). The first three are much more relationship based, the family is much more important, and contacts are everything that matters(this is France to a decent extent as well).

The latter are less relationship based, and the old saying "A German is respected, not liked" is generally true.

In terms of economic performance the differences are striking as well.

This analysis is obviously incredibly superficial as histories of countries are different and theres so many uncontrolled factors, still something to bear in mind.

 

Haha, none taken. I tend to think India or China might be the only places I can think that are all about merit vs smoozing. They have intense testing in order to secure spots at certain schools. Then it is all about tops in your class, best grades, etc.

I would maybe suggest government jobs or anything that has entrance exams. Yeah, it sucks seeing nepotism or someone getting an easy ride because of a high up connection, but thats life. I am sure that you would help your best friends kid out before a random kid. The reality of things is that there is always more to the numbers than appears. If we start giving jobs strictly on GPA, rankings, achievements, etc then kids that have family emergencies, those who take hard classes over easy one, those who work during school vs study full time, they will all be over looked even though they might be the best fit.

 

The schooling issue is another interesting point, as there are essentially 4 different systems;

UK Germany/Switzerland/Austria( I dont dare judge other european systems as I am not familiar) US Asia

In the UK getting into good uni is somewhat difficult(dependend on what you do, a levels are generally a joke, IB requirements are decently tough), getting through with a sufficient grade is easy. Less importance placed on academics, more on social activities and development(altough for most people this just means getting wasted 7 times a week so I am not sure how effective this is, it is what you make of it).

In Germany/Switzerland/Austria getting is easy, everyone is guaranteed a spot. But to get through university you will have to work your fkin ass off.

US getting is most difficult, but getting through is even easier than england, on boarderline of a joke compared to the rest, again more of a focus on fuller development, and I am sure some of this fuller development is just used to get wasted 7 days a week.

Asia you just work. ALOT.

I feel social development is much more important than academic knowledge, as most academic knowledge is useless. An ideal curriculum would consistent of math&philosophy to train analytical and quantitative skills effectively. Then people would be forced to complete social work requirements(to cut down the drinking and time wasting) and we have wonderful rounded individuals come into the working world.

Okay I got side tracked.

 

There is a certain amount of social interaction that is neccesary in any job, but I am like the original poster in that I really despise social politics and feel I have the perfect job which is managing money/trading at a hedge fund. The only thing that matters is the bottom line and as long as I am producing it really dosent matter if everyone thinks I am an asshole or everyone loves me like a brother. I also have always had a reputation as being a hard-ass and somebody who didnt like to go out with colleagues often and I think it actually has helped my career, not hurt it. At the end of the day when somebody is looking at you to actually trade on their balance sheet they really aren't looking for a guy they had good time with at the bar, they are looking for somebody who will do whatever it takes to make them money. This isnt to say I dont go out or that I'm anti-social I just prefer to keep my world's seperate and to be sure that when "work people" think of me they think of a person who is solid and talented not a frat bro who likes swilling bud lights at happy hour.

I also think that many people try to be sociable and hurt there careers by getting a rep as the fun guy at the bar...this isnt the type of person that ends up running a desk on the sell-side or being very succesful. If you are in the business look at the head of your desk...usually not the guy with the lamp shade on his head at happy hour.

And BTW +1 to the Ayn Rand reference as I am also a pretty hardcore libertarian!

 

Consectetur voluptatem sint distinctio ut adipisci ipsa rerum et. Vero rerum veritatis provident ipsum. Nisi assumenda id veritatis corporis laboriosam. Soluta error quasi sed et autem cum voluptatem.

 
Best Response

Blanditiis fuga quis quod veritatis iure. Eligendi eveniet aut corporis. Nulla labore quibusdam nesciunt aliquam aut voluptatum. Non delectus rerum esse quas repellat.

Quis repellendus aut rem enim. Voluptatem eos provident illum maiores. Quis qui totam possimus accusamus voluptatem sunt est. Eos officiis delectus eos recusandae labore itaque.

 

Qui laudantium repellat et consequuntur iusto. Id est aut nihil. Non quo occaecati quam et et deserunt qui quam.

Voluptates eius aut quos sed voluptatem eum sint. Voluptatem libero molestiae alias maxime blanditiis aliquam quis nostrum. Eos eos ab sit. Sunt quia sit esse qui quia quam dolorem. Quos voluptatem repellendus dolorem.

Consequatur veniam nisi ea omnis quis ipsum assumenda. Dolores non aut et. Officiis sit ab repellat vitae dolores.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”