Pages

  • Sharebar

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?

The WSO Advantage - Investment Banking

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation + Learn More.

IB Interview Prep Pack

30,000+ sold & REAL questions Learn More.

Resume Help from Actual IB Pros

Land More IB Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Perfect IB Mentor

Realistic IB Mock Interviews. Learn More.

Comments (90)

  • fp175's picture

    Well I'm going into markets, so consulting has nothing for me, not even McKinsey.

  • student22's picture

    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

  • In reply to fp175
    zardari's picture

    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.

  • tallon123's picture

    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.

  • Rickets's picture

    This is like asking what's a better graduate school, Yale Law School or Harvard Med?

    This is a throwaway thread.

  • In reply to zardari
    goldson's picture

    zardari:
    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.

  • aadpepsi's picture

    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.

  • In reply to aadpepsi
    goldson's picture

    aadpepsi:
    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?

  • Salam Shpekov's picture

    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

  • In reply to goldson
    freeloader's picture

    goldson:
    aadpepsi:
    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.

  • In reply to aadpepsi
    djia5000's picture

    aadpepsi:

    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.

  • In reply to goldson
    buysideguy's picture

    goldson:
    zardari:
    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.

  • In reply to goldson
    aadpepsi's picture

    goldson:
    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.

The WSO Advantage - Investment Banking

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation + Learn More.

IB Interview Prep Pack

30,000+ sold & REAL questions Learn More.

Resume Help from Actual IB Pros

Land More IB Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Perfect IB Mentor

Realistic IB Mock Interviews. Learn More.

  • tallon123's picture

    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.

  • jj80's picture

    McKinsey BA is not more or less impressive than an analyst at GS IBD. And coming out of GS IBD you have opportunities in the corporate world, in addition to PE HF etc. And coming out of McKinsey BA you have opportunities to work in PE as well, so do whatever interests you. I for one know people that would be bored by consulting and people that would be bored by banking

  • In reply to tallon123
    aadpepsi's picture

    tallon123:
    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 -

    Optimism... vs. my healthy dose of cynicism.

  • Prescott Moncrief III's picture

    If you're interested in finance (IBD, PE, HF) or nothing other than making money, do GS; if you're interested in anything else or getting in to HBS after putting in only two years, go with McKinsey. Can't just declare one better than the other.

    Will say that GS is much more selective, contrary to what some people are saying, however. GS sees over 100,000 applications for analyst positions and only hires about 130 of those. Though this could just be due to the GS name, which as the OP said is more well known than McK among your average group of college students, and thus the quality of the overall applicant pool may be lower. Still, I have a few friends who have made the leap from average BBs to M/B/B, but none who were able to make the leap from consulting to GS or MS.

  • In reply to tallon123
    freeloader's picture

    tallon123:
    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.

    nychimp:
    there are about 5,000 threads on compensation and work hours...i was just pointing you to one that asked the same question you did: "is it worth it?"

    clearly, that depends. If you want to know what I have made:

    1st Year ibanking (2002): $55k base, $28k bonus
    2nd Year ibanking (2003): $55k base, $65k bonus
    1st Year PE: $70k base, no bonus (switched firms)
    2nd Year PE: $80k base, $75k bonus
    3rd Year PE: $80k base, ? bonus

    ...but compensation depends on a lot of factors (firm, location, year, etc). For example, in 2002, a $28k bonus was considered decent (after 9/11), whereas if someone received that in 2006 it would probably be the lowest on the street.

    plenty of info. on here, just use the Search funtion. thanks.

    Ten years might be a bit too optimistic...

  • tallon123's picture

    1. nychimp started out during a pretty rough time
    2. pe comp is much higher today
    3. goldman bankers who leave tend to have a decent shot at the multi billion pe funds

    to be honest when i was thinking 10 years i was thinking more of markets

  • Frank Slaughtery's picture

    Sweet name

    "Todd paused and collected himself. “Yeah, I mean, I just really wanted to be closer to the deals, you know. Get more exposure.”

    “Yes, of course. Very understandable,” replied Prescott, feigning belief and interest. He told himself he was above mocking his feeble conversation partner, but he could not resist. “So, done any big mergers lately? I hear Joe’s Deli bought a liquor store in The Bronx.” Prescott snickered. "

  • jaclee317's picture

    You really can't say which one is BETTER because you are comparing two different career paths. If you're into banking, you can't beat GS. If you're into consulting, you can't beat McKinsey. However, certain things are facts: McKinsey (and other top consulting firms in general) takes fewer undergrads than Goldman does so you can say it's more selective. In general, I would say getting offers out of college from m/b/b/b are tougher than getting BBs offers.

    And by the way, Goldman does not have "fantastic pay" relative to other BBs. I heard they actually pay below the Street.

  • freeloader's picture

    I was just pointing out that comp isn't always going to be as high as it is today, especially if the economy slows down in the next couple years.

  • raider4ever's picture

    The McKinsey website (biased, naturally, but still...) provides an interesting account of consulting vs. i-banking and their respective merits.

    To be very profound ... I think anyone considering between the two needs to really take a hard look at what the differences are and what they truly want. Ok, not very profound but seriously, search down deep and figure it out.

    If your main purpose in life is to make more money then 99% of your classmates while you are 22-25, then you have a very simple decision.

    If your main goal is to become an expert at financial modeling b/c you love finance and are beyond certain that you will do it your entire life or if you just really like it and want to give it your best shot regardless, then your decision is made.

    There is no question, Goldman is for you.

    If you want something broad, something where every day/week/project/study etc is different and you want to explore different things (though you do get the same hotel bed 3 nights a week), different businesses/roles/industries etc. and you are passionate about forming well-rounded business attributes & skills that you can hone later in life, then goldman isn't a bad option, but McKinsey is a better one. It would take far too long to list what you will encounter at McKinsey.

    Also, quality of life is not nec. better, but different. In banking you'll be in your own bed every night, but in the office much, much more. In consulting you are traveling all the time, at least 9 out of every 10 weeks and the novelty wears off. You are also ALWAYS on call, similar to banking, but it is less strict.

    Personally, I am biased toward McKinsey, but IMHO the reasons one ought/should choose Goldman are more concrete and clear-cut.

    If you are able to get a job at Goldman or McKinsey, with some elbow grease in McKinsey follows a bit of a different philosophy and also takes a smaller class.

    Be honest with yourself.

  • tallon123's picture

    I would say Booz is no where near the other three

  • freeloader's picture

    Thought I might add, my impression of banking v consulting is that banking is a more defined skill set, while consulting is more versatile and ambiguous.

    You can't really quite say who is smarter, a typical GS analyst or a typical McK BA, but if both were assigned a completely random task, i.e. run a project, solve a problem, etc, 8 times out of 10 the McK guy is gonna do better at it because of the wider and more diverse skill set developed in consulting.

  • In reply to buysideguy
    fp175's picture

    ibanalyst:

    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.

    This is not true. I got an interview at McK without a 3.7. I didn't go because I had already taken an offer at a non-BB investment bank. Consulting isn't for everyone.

  • In reply to freeloader
    aadpepsi's picture

    xistguru:
    8 times out of 10 the McK guy is gonna do better at it because of the wider and more diverse skill set developed in consulting.

    I actually agree with this. The frameworks that McKinsey consultants learn/use, the way they approach issues and work thru them - this is going to be much more valuable long-term in any career vs. financial modeling skills at an IB. Modeling skills can be spoon fed, soft skills cannot.

    Ofcourse, this is not to say that one wouldn't learn to think strategically etc. working for GS...

    Also, the likelihood is that as a young consultant at McKinsey you are perhaps more likely to enter into some discussions and deeper level discussions with C-level management that you probably wouldn't get as an anlyst.

    As an IB analyst are you really making an impact? Is it really a value added job? Can you honestly say the contribution you make creating a pitch book and modeling had a strategic impact on a company, an industry? Just more stuff to think about...

    I admit I am biased toward McKinsey. This and the fact that I'm not so enamored with GS like everyone else seems to be. As someone posted a while back ago... along the lines... "why do you guys whack off to GS?"

  • StoneImmaculate's picture

    It's really funny that to some people on here if you so much as imply that GS is not the greatest job anyone could ever have it's like you just called their mother the whore of Babylon.

  • aadpepsi's picture

    Right :-)

    And Earth doesn't rotate on its axis because GS exists!

    There are SO many fabulous places to work...

  • sashimi's picture

    i think lots of the posts really dwell on the airy fairy reputation/prestige/money. but at the end of the day it comes down to the job itself as well. if you like fin mkts/structuring deals/valuations etc ib is more like it, whereas consulting is more prob solving diff companies on the operations side, rather than the financing side.

    but if you are indifferent then perhaps hte more $ the merrier and voila ~ Goldman..

    work hours are long for both, although obviously much more so in ib, so i think one really should actually enjoy the work itself as the priority.

  • In reply to aadpepsi
    goldson's picture

    aadpepsi:
    goldson:
    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.

    Are you sure about that? 2 years of i-banking at goldman does not allow you to do whatever you want? Does 2 years at McKinsey get you a job at Blackstone? Nope, but it can at GS. Can 2 years at McKinsey get you into top hedge funds, nope but at GS yes. Can 2 years of i-banking stop you from taking a management position at some Fortune 500 company, nope you still can. So what does McKinsey give you that GS doesn't...... and the answer is, MONEY! mckinsey gives you less money, and thats it

  • In reply to goldson
    consultant16180's picture

    goldson:
    aadpepsi:
    goldson:
    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.

    Are you sure about that? 2 years of i-banking at goldman does not allow you to do whatever you want? Does 2 years at McKinsey get you a job at Blackstone? Nope, but it can at GS. Can 2 years at McKinsey get you into top hedge funds, nope but at GS yes. Can 2 years of i-banking stop you from taking a management position at some Fortune 500 company, nope you still can. So what does McKinsey give you that GS doesn't...... and the answer is, MONEY! mckinsey gives you less money, and thats it

    You are clearly not well acquainted with McKinsey. The firm places people at Bain Capital, Blackstone, KKR and other top PE shops regularly. I am sure all those companies are clients too.

    If you want, you can go to a hedge fund anytime. Chelsea Clinton went to a hedge fund after 3 years at McK.

    Oh and try getting a position in operations or strategy or any management-level job in a company after 2 years of GS and see how they laugh in your face. McK people enter in high-level management positions ALL THE TIME.

    How many CEOs were ex-Goldman employees? Compare that to
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_McKinsey_%26_...

    McKinsey constitutes more than 10% of the incoming class at HBS.

  • WizardofOz's picture

    This whole thread is stupid, its more about consulting vs. ibanking than it is about McKinsey vs. Goldman.

    Both McKinsey and Goldman are great places to start your career and where you go from there is entirely dependent on your capabilities. Neither opens doors that aren't available to the other. If you are smart and qualified, you'll do fine with having either on your resume.

  • In reply to consultant16180
    goldson's picture

    consultant16180:
    goldson:
    aadpepsi:
    goldson:
    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.

    Are you sure about that? 2 years of i-banking at goldman does not allow you to do whatever you want? Does 2 years at McKinsey get you a job at Blackstone? Nope, but it can at GS. Can 2 years at McKinsey get you into top hedge funds, nope but at GS yes. Can 2 years of i-banking stop you from taking a management position at some Fortune 500 company, nope you still can. So what does McKinsey give you that GS doesn't...... and the answer is, MONEY! mckinsey gives you less money, and thats it

    You are clearly not well acquainted with McKinsey. The firm places people at Bain Capital, Blackstone, KKR and other top PE shops regularly. I am sure all those companies are clients too.

    If you want, you can go to a hedge fund anytime. Chelsea Clinton went to a hedge fund after 3 years at McK.

    Oh and try getting a position in operations or strategy or any management-level job in a company after 2 years of GS and see how they laugh in your face. McK people enter in high-level management positions ALL THE TIME.

    How many CEOs were ex-Goldman employees? Compare that to
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_McKinsey_%26_...

    McKinsey constitutes more than 10% of the incoming class at HBS.

    You dumbass how can you use Chelsea Clinton as an example? Don't you think the fact that her dad is one of the most famous people in the world has anything to do with it dipshit?

  • StreetLuck's picture

    I don't understand what people are arguing about here. I think Wizard hit the nail on the head with his comments.

    If you want to end up in finance long-term, Goldman gives you better opportunities. If you want to end up in management, go with McKinsey.

    Both give you opportunities to make a lot of money down the line (though GS might start you off at a higher salary/bonus and have higher potential). What's the problem here? To say that one is clearly better than the other is quite idiotic.

    No matter what you try to do afterwards, if you are an alum of GS or McK, no one is going to slam the door in your face, although usual exit opportunities are different for the two firms.

  • In reply to goldson
    consultant16180's picture

    goldson:
    consultant16180:
    goldson:
    aadpepsi:
    goldson:
    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.

    Are you sure about that? 2 years of i-banking at goldman does not allow you to do whatever you want? Does 2 years at McKinsey get you a job at Blackstone? Nope, but it can at GS. Can 2 years at McKinsey get you into top hedge funds, nope but at GS yes. Can 2 years of i-banking stop you from taking a management position at some Fortune 500 company, nope you still can. So what does McKinsey give you that GS doesn't...... and the answer is, MONEY! mckinsey gives you less money, and thats it

    You are clearly not well acquainted with McKinsey. The firm places people at Bain Capital, Blackstone, KKR and other top PE shops regularly. I am sure all those companies are clients too.

    If you want, you can go to a hedge fund anytime. Chelsea Clinton went to a hedge fund after 3 years at McK.

    Oh and try getting a position in operations or strategy or any management-level job in a company after 2 years of GS and see how they laugh in your face. McK people enter in high-level management positions ALL THE TIME.

    How many CEOs were ex-Goldman employees? Compare that to
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_McKinsey_%26_...

    McKinsey constitutes more than 10% of the incoming class at HBS.

    You dumbass how can you use Chelsea Clinton as an example? Don't you think the fact that her dad is one of the most famous people in the world has anything to do with it dipshit?

    Learn to calm down. I used her because she's a widely known McK alum. I personally know of people who've made the switch into HFs.

  • PoppingMyCollar's picture

    If you are more into finance/excel -> GS hands down

    If you are more into strategy/powerpoint -> McK hands down

  • JambaMan's picture

    I don't understand this thread. Both GS and McKinsey are very prestigious companies that open many doors for their employees.

    I will say this.....

    I know of the former worldwide Managing Director at McKinsey. While not knowing the family personally, they live in the area and their children go to the same school another family member of mine went to.

    They live in a multimillion dollar waterfront mansion and have an affluent lifestyle ( kind of obvious thinking about the position of worldwide Managing Director)

    Is it the same extravagance as Lloyd Blankfein or top Goldman traders? No....(this should settle the monetary differences)

    However, with McKinsey you get the same recognition and a more rounded skill set that Fortune 500 companies tend to hold in higher value.

    Don't get me wrong finance is valued at PE shops, Hedge Funds and Venture Capital firms, but consulting builds a different set of skills that are more valued by Fortune 500 companies for Corporate Officer positions.

    I know that he was appointed to the Board of Directors at Goldman Sachs after serving as Worldwide Managing Director of McKinsey.

    It is safe to say that Goldman recognizes the prestige of McKinsey and respects the work that McKinsey does. Hence a former worldwide Managing Director is a Board Member at Goldman.

  • Prescott Moncrief III's picture

    The ex-CEOs of Sara Lee (the cheesecake company) and All-State (the car insurance company) are also on the board of directors at Goldman. Does that mean GS respects the entry-level work of a cook or insurance salesman? Consulting is for kids who didn't get into banking, period.

  • JambaMan's picture

    No, but it does mean they respect the knowledge of the CEOs and the companies themselves.

    Free cheesecake for all Goldman employees courtesy of Sara Lee and no car insurance needed for their Ferraris thanks to All State.

  • mika's picture

    Someone give me an argument that explains how consulting isn't a bunch of useless fluff. Strategy classes = buzzwords and meaningless frameworks.

    It doesn't make sense that consultants dont even specialize in the industry, yet claim to be able to help out the businesses who do.

  • In reply to mika
    goldson's picture

    mika:
    Someone give me an argument that explains how consulting isn't a bunch of useless fluff. Strategy classes = buzzwords and meaningless frameworks.

    It doesn't make sense that consultants dont even specialize in the industry, yet claim to be able to help out the businesses who do.

    Exactly. People who are willing to work hard and can work under high pressure, prefer finance and i-banking. People who want a more less challenging safer option go to places like McKinsey.

  • In reply to goldson
    freeloader's picture

    goldson:
    mika:
    Someone give me an argument that explains how consulting isn't a bunch of useless fluff. Strategy classes = buzzwords and meaningless frameworks.

    It doesn't make sense that consultants dont even specialize in the industry, yet claim to be able to help out the businesses who do.

    Exactly. People who are willing to work hard and can work under high pressure, prefer finance and i-banking. People who want a more less challenging safer option go to places like McKinsey.

    People who are risk-averse and don't mind doing the same tasks over and over go into banking. People who are willing to take risks, work in ambigious situations, and tackle a variety of issues go into consulting.

  • maverickPE's picture

    Goldman would actually be the "safer" option, at least from a financial perspective (but I would argue also from a career development perspective, because of the "hard" vs "soft" skills)

  • maverickPE's picture

    Plenty of people turn down banking jobs (yes, even Goldman and MS) for consulting. I doubt there is anyone at MBB who could not have done banking if they had wanted to. But I think that somewhere in the mid-range BBs you will find a lot of people who wish they had gone into consulting.

  • In reply to freeloader
    goldson's picture

    xistguru:
    goldson:
    mika:
    Someone give me an argument that explains how consulting isn't a bunch of useless fluff. Strategy classes = buzzwords and meaningless frameworks.

    It doesn't make sense that consultants dont even specialize in the industry, yet claim to be able to help out the businesses who do.

    Exactly. People who are willing to work hard and can work under high pressure, prefer finance and i-banking. People who want a more less challenging safer option go to places like McKinsey.

    People who are risk-averse and don't mind doing the same tasks over and over go into banking. People who are willing to take risks, work in ambigious situations, and tackle a variety of issues go into consulting.

    More like if you are 40 and got kids at home and just want to make sure there is food on the table go to places like McKinsey where you know that you have a decent life and a good job and feel like some of your work is interesting. But if you want to never know what is going to be expected day to day, you never know how much you are going to be pushed to your limits everyday, and a place where there is no peak as the sky is the limit, go into i-banking. You always hear consultants talk bad thinks about i-bankers, whereas i-bankers never say a damn thing about consultants because they know how easy and unstressful the jobs at McKinsey are.

  • maverickPE's picture

    Bankers talk shit about consultants all the time... you are delusional or you do not work in banking.

  • In reply to freeloader
    StreetLuck's picture

    xistguru:

    People who are risk-averse and don't mind doing the same tasks over and over go into banking. People who are willing to take risks, work in ambigious situations, and tackle a variety of issues go into consulting.

    Actually, people in the latter group would go into trading. There's nothing "risky" about a consulting job.

  • In reply to goldson
    freeloader's picture

    goldson:
    xistguru:
    goldson:
    mika:
    Someone give me an argument that explains how consulting isn't a bunch of useless fluff. Strategy classes = buzzwords and meaningless frameworks.

    It doesn't make sense that consultants dont even specialize in the industry, yet claim to be able to help out the businesses who do.

    Exactly. People who are willing to work hard and can work under high pressure, prefer finance and i-banking. People who want a more less challenging safer option go to places like McKinsey.

    People who are risk-averse and don't mind doing the same tasks over and over go into banking. People who are willing to take risks, work in ambigious situations, and tackle a variety of issues go into consulting.

    More like if you are 40 and got kids at home and just want to make sure there is food on the table go to places like McKinsey where you know that you have a decent life and a good job and feel like some of your work is interesting. But if you want to never know what is going to be expected day to day, you never know how much you are going to be pushed to your limits everyday, and a place where there is no peak as the sky is the limit, go into i-banking. You always hear consultants talk bad thinks about i-bankers, whereas i-bankers never say a damn thing about consultants because they know how easy and unstressful the jobs at McKinsey are.

    Kid, you really need to get your head out of your ass. "Pushed to your limits everyday"? "No peak as the sky is the limit"? You're talking banking, not the army...

Pages