McKinsey & Company vs. Goldman Sachs - for an undergraduate.
Had a few friends who were choosing between these two firms senior year. Two of them when to McKinsey, one went to Goldman. We had a lot of Consulting Vs. Banking back-and-forth, but I'd like to see what arguments this board has in support of either (and I realize that most are going to say Goldman, since this is a banking forum and most don't really know what McKinsey does, so I'll chime in now and then). Just to get the ball rolling here:
Goldman:
Fantastic pay
More layman's prestige
GREAT exit opps into PE, hedge funds, practically any finance position
More "hard skills" type work
McKinsey
Good pay, GREAT benefits
More prestige in B-school, management circles
Very good exit opps into finance, unparalleled exit opps into practically any other industry/field
Fantastic B-school placement, pays for B-school in many cases
LOTS of responsibility at a very junior level (one of my friends met a CEO of F500 in his first study!)
What do you guys think?





Well I'm going into markets,
Well I'm going into markets, so consulting has nothing for me, not even McKinsey.
If you love banking choose
If you love banking choose GS
If you doubt whether you love banking choose McK
I spoke to many McKinsey people.. they all stated in this world there is only one firm that is more prestigious and is really the best and that is Goldman Sachs! However, McK has smarter people in general because at least at the office in my country they do care about GPA, sometimes GS hires people with a low GPA which might indicate that person might be less intelligent (but necessarily)
Given you love banking:
What would be better, all depending on your age, your personal situation:
GS analyst--> GS associate --> GS VP etc
McKinsey fellow--> B-school MBA 2yrs --> GS associate
McKinsey
Mckinsey is the biggest brand name anyone can get on his resume. A Mckinsey person gets so much respect anywhere and its the best place to learn and develop yourself for long term success. If somebody is 100% convinced about pursuing a career in banking/finance then Goldman is a better option but otherwise Mckinsey beats Goldman w/o any doubt. I have had experience working with ex Mckinsey and ex goldman analysts and mckinsey guys seem so much smarter, creative and social.
Just my 2 cents. I know this board is biased towards banking so ppl will flame me but if you go out in corporate world or talk to anyone at business school, Mckinsey name is way above Goldman.
I don't think you can say
I don't think you can say one is better than the other. Each is the best in its industry. McKinsey intake at undergrad level is a little smaller than Goldman FO though.
This is like
This is like asking what's a better graduate school, Yale Law School or Harvard Med?
This is a throwaway thread.
Re: McKinsey
Mckinsey is the biggest brand name anyone can get on his resume. A Mckinsey person gets so much respect anywhere and its the best place to learn and develop yourself for long term success. If somebody is 100% convinced about pursuing a career in banking/finance then Goldman is a better option but otherwise Mckinsey beats Goldman w/o any doubt. I have had experience working with ex Mckinsey and ex goldman analysts and mckinsey guys seem so much smarter, creative and social.
Just my 2 cents. I know this board is biased towards banking so ppl will flame me but if you go out in corporate world or talk to anyone at business school, Mckinsey name is way above Goldman.
"Mckinsey name is way above Goldman"?!?!?!?
Are you freaken serious man? That is completely untrue because the fact of the matter is that most of the guys at GS can get to McKinsey but that cannot be said the other way around. Question is, why would you want to take a 50% pay cut? Without question GS is better, but McKinsey people will argue pussy things like, "I want a better quality of life" aka I cannot cut it at GS.
Hmmm, interesting question.
Hmmm, interesting question. Well, if it were my choice, I'd hands down say McKinsey. A couple of reasons...
If someone is straight out of undergrad and has the opportunity with either/or, I think McKisney would give the broadest experience, best prestige for graduate school and better long-term career potential.
If one were to do the McKinsey route post-undergrad for a few years and then pursue B-School, I think you may be a stronger candidate. Also, just a personal perspective but I believe entry into IB is better as an Associate vs. analyst. You skip a lot of scut level work.
Besides, perhaps some of your work as a consultant for McKinsey may very well expose you to the nature of work and the culture of different I-banks and this internal perspective is a competitive advantage to gauge whether IB is for you post-MBA.
Finally, I'm not sure how statistically true this statement might be, but there may be more executives of Fortune 500 that are McKinsey alumni vs. GS alumni.
Re: Hmmm, interesting question.
Hmmm, interesting question. Well, if it were my choice, I'd hands down say McKinsey. A couple of reasons...
If someone is straight out of undergrad and has the opportunity with either/or, I think McKisney would give the broadest experience, best prestige for graduate school and better long-term career potential.
If one were to do the McKinsey route post-undergrad for a few years and then pursue B-School, I think you may be a stronger candidate. Also, just a personal perspective but I believe entry into IB is better as an Associate vs. analyst. You skip a lot of scut level work.
Besides, perhaps some of your work as a consultant for McKinsey may very well expose you to the nature of work and the culture of different I-banks and this internal perspective is a competitive advantage to gauge whether IB is for you post-MBA.
Finally, I'm not sure how statistically true this statement might be, but there may be more executives of Fortune 500 that are McKinsey alumni vs. GS alumni.
True but why not make $140k at 22 instead of waiting until you are at least 27 at McKinsey to make that?
The whole quality of life
The whole quality of life thing is crap. Travelling 5 days a week, sleeping in a different hotel every night. How is that better than banking?
And for the record, I chose a lower ranked BB over Bain Consulting
Re: Hmmm, interesting question.
Hmmm, interesting question. Well, if it were my choice, I'd hands down say McKinsey. A couple of reasons...
If someone is straight out of undergrad and has the opportunity with either/or, I think McKisney would give the broadest experience, best prestige for graduate school and better long-term career potential.
If one were to do the McKinsey route post-undergrad for a few years and then pursue B-School, I think you may be a stronger candidate. Also, just a personal perspective but I believe entry into IB is better as an Associate vs. analyst. You skip a lot of scut level work.
Besides, perhaps some of your work as a consultant for McKinsey may very well expose you to the nature of work and the culture of different I-banks and this internal perspective is a competitive advantage to gauge whether IB is for you post-MBA.
Finally, I'm not sure how statistically true this statement might be, but there may be more executives of Fortune 500 that are McKinsey alumni vs. GS alumni.
True but why not make $140k at 22 instead of waiting until you are at least 27 at McKinsey to make that?
Because you are doing different work. Not every person wants to do banking. Smart business oriented people often want to work with businesses.
Besides, I'm fairly certain McK is a bit more selective in the total number of front-office positions for undergrads.
Re: Hmmm, interesting question.
Finally, I'm not sure how statistically true this statement might be, but there may be more executives of Fortune 500 that are McKinsey alumni vs. GS alumni.
I dont know the statistics either, but my guess is that this is true.
It boils down to how much you KNOW you want to do finance. Id compare this to majoring in liberal arts vs finance. If you do liberal arts (McK), you can still do finance later (but its harder). If you major in finance, you are a bit more pigeonholed, but it will be easier to reach the upper levels of Finance.
Re: McKinsey
Mckinsey is the biggest brand name anyone can get on his resume. A Mckinsey person gets so much respect anywhere and its the best place to learn and develop yourself for long term success. If somebody is 100% convinced about pursuing a career in banking/finance then Goldman is a better option but otherwise Mckinsey beats Goldman w/o any doubt. I have had experience working with ex Mckinsey and ex goldman analysts and mckinsey guys seem so much smarter, creative and social.
Just my 2 cents. I know this board is biased towards banking so ppl will flame me but if you go out in corporate world or talk to anyone at business school, Mckinsey name is way above Goldman.
"Mckinsey name is way above Goldman"?!?!?!?
Are you freaken serious man? That is completely untrue because the fact of the matter is that most of the guys at GS can get to McKinsey but that cannot be said the other way around. Question is, why would you want to take a 50% pay cut? Without question GS is better, but McKinsey people will argue pussy things like, "I want a better quality of life" aka I cannot cut it at GS.
Actually, McKinsey, believe it or not, is way more selective than GS and going from McKinsey to GS is much easier than the other way around. This is just one example, but consider the fact that GS hires a wide range of GPA's while McK wont even look at you without a 3.7+.
Also, money at this age is all relative, esp if you get Bschool paid for you and I do believe most of the people I know from McK could def "cut it" at GS.
Consulting is for pussies.
Consulting is for pussies.
Re: Hmmm, interesting question.
True but why not make $140k at 22 instead of waiting until you are at least 27 at McKinsey to make that?
Well, here's the notion nobody seems to get on this forum... contrary to popular belief, 2 years in IB as an analyst does not a lifetime career make. Everyone seems to think that they can put their 2 years in and that every step after that is going to be on a red carpet.
Whereas at least 2-3 years at McKinsey and that DOES give you plenty more options. At least I think so. It's also about reputation and how you're perceived. If you work at Goldman at such a young age, sure that's impressive. But if your first ever job is with McKinsey, that's MORE impressive.
Now why do you care what you make at 22? I've said this before but I'll say it again, careers are determined 10 years out. Net worth is not going to be determined from 22-24.
aadpepsi - I expect most gs
aadpepsi - I expect most gs first years would hope to be set up for life 10-14 years into their careers. Many would no doubt like to be retired by that age - or at least doing something a hell of a lot less stressful, something which gives them a bit more family time.
With McKinsey BA you tend to be committed to 5+ years of 'low' earnings before you can start to cash in. That means that it will take a lot longer to build up your bank balance.
McKinsey BA is not more or
Re: aadpepsi - I expect most gs
If you're interested in
Re: aadpepsi - I expect most gs
1. nychimp started out
Prescott
You really can't say which
I was just pointing out that
apologize for long, rambling post...
I would say Booz is no where
Thought I might add, my
Re: McKinsey
Re: Thought I might add, my
It's really funny that if
Right :-) And Earth doesn't
airy fairy
Re: Hmmm, interesting question.
Re: Hmmm, interesting question.
This whole thread is stupid,
Re: Hmmm, interesting question.
I don't understand what
Interview Guides
GMAT Tutors
WSO Resume Review
Re: Hmmm, interesting question.
If you are more into
I don't understand this
The ex-CEOs of Sara Lee (the
No, but it does mean they
Someone give me an argument
Re: Someone give me an argument
Re: Someone give me an argument
I agree
Prescott
Re: Someone give me an argument
uh
Re: Someone give me an argument
Interview Guides
GMAT Tutors
WSO Resume Review
Re: Someone give me an argument