Another Tech vs IB Post
So I've read up on too many of these posts and I've narrowed my question down to:
Given that one is a CS major at a target and has the technical background required to make it into FAANG, is the potential--earning, exit opps, etc.--of the industry at this moment enough to outweigh a lack of passion in CS? Lots of people go into finance with no passion; is the same not possible for tech? I've been coding since high school and I can't say I "enjoy" it--just like how I don't "enjoy" finance--but I am pretty decent at it.
My question is focused on tech as an industry to keep the analysis as objective as possible. One thing I've noticed in similar posts is that there's too much qualitative one-off examples that only blur the whole picture. So, if you plan on interjecting "tech is dying" you better be prepared to back that up with evidence.
Just go into the field that you are passionate about. I personally don't like tech or coding. I liked being an Excel monkey for the most part.
What if you are passionate and yet not passionate about either field and you're just there to get rich and then get out. I appreciate the sentiment but I came here for an objective analysis on which field will maximize my earnings and future potential
I cannot speak to IB because I’ve never stepped foot in an investment bank’s office. I’ve never worked in finance as an analyst either.
I’m currently a Senior Software Engineer at a finance firm though. There’s a big myth that everyone in tech is enthralled with it and just builds the coolest, open source projects. While some people are like that, the majority are not. This would not be a fair comparison to the average investment banker according to this forum (not the passion or lack there of, but just time invested).
You can grind Leetcode and land an L3 FAANG role and make damn near $200k if you get multiple offers. You can probably be slightly above average and FAANG hop around and reach $300k within a few more years (I’d say 3-5). Pushing above that won’t be possible if you’re just coasting (unless you’re extremely lucky somehow). As humans, we improve nonlinearly but correlated to the amount of concentrated effort we put into something.
I’m reading 3 pretty dry technical textbooks right now. Why? I want to improve myself. I wouldn’t say I’m extremely passionate about it (I don’t dream about this stuff), but I’m very- even extremely- interested in it and want to learn more and more. I haven’t found my passion, I think it might be leadership but I lead a small team so I can’t really say. I digress.
If you truly want to earn crazy amounts, passion helps a ton. If there’s no passion, a strong interest + desire to improve + dedication + being competitive can suffice in some situations (maybe even most situations). From the sound of it- and I’m speculating- those hours are forced upon you in IB. You’ve gotta grind it out with long hours to get exposure to that world. Tech you can kinda coast if you want. Hell if you’re happy on $120-150k working remotely from whichever island you’re at this month (and I do know 2 people like this off the top of my head), you can definitely do that in tech. If you want to clear that half a mil mark you’ve gotta invest a ton in your skill set AND office politics acumen (I think regardless of industry).
Hope that helps. FWIW I also don’t get a hard on for programming these most extreme algos or building out a GraphQL API or whatever. I do find cloud computing/ distributed systems fascinating. I am also learning more about security and chaos engineering. Let me know if you have other questions.
Thank you for the comment. It sounds like SWE probably isn't the best choice for me; without the pressure that IB--or even being a college student--forces on me I would probably, speaking from experience after drudging through 2 years of college CS, flatline quickly.
Following up on your post, would you say the same is true for SWE positions in HFT firms? I don't know much about those positions; are they closer to a generic SWE position in a tech firm, or a quant role? I ask because with the latter, one remains at least somewhat connected to the world of finance and could pivot to an MBA or less quantitative position
Well I think if you’re purely chasing money, you’re going to be miserable. I know that sounds cliche and dumb and “when you can afford xyz it’ll feel different”. If you’re going to curse the moment you wake up in the morning, it’s probably not worth it. I’d suggest digging deep and reading some of thebrofessor ‘s post history.
As for HFT there’s a difference between SWE and Data Scientist and Quant. I’ll focus on SWE because I’m much lighter on knowledge when it comes to DS and Quant. SWEs get paid more at the big HFT than FAANG, but the pressure is turned up to 11 and it’s very political and cutthroat at the big shops. Maybe there’s exceptions though. But again, see my above paragraph and finding what makes you happy.
If you’re at a target and still in school- go intern in a pressure cooker like Citadel. Maybe you really thrive in that. Maybe it makes you miserable. Go find out.
Also- your first job out of college does not define you. You can pick a path and change, I did.
In short, being an average CS person is probably a better career than an average finance person, and I completely agree with that assessment. You have so much more freedom.
This confuses me; it's almost always the shorter hours of CS, when juxtaposed with the often-overexaggerated "hellish" stereotype of IB, that plays a disporportionate role in tipping the scale from finance towards tech. But the data I've read point time and time again to finance being the career that ultimately gives you the greater freedom, from the higher salaries to a wider array of exit opps. Being average in tech sounds pretty miserable; you easily fall into a rut of laziness in which you receive minimal penalty simply because of how laid back the job is - that is, until the manager pulls in 10 H1B workers to replace you.
It's really hard to say, but... IB may not be constantly hellish but it's comically different to the lifestyle that people in tech lead. If you put finance hours and preparation into a tech career, you would be a top quartile tech person. Tech success is also based on your skills. The hours in finance are table stakes and making it to the highest level at least in IB and corporations is based more on your social skills and network.
IB Analyst does grant you access to exit options like PE and corporate development. But with CS you also have the entire world of startups, of which finance is of little importance or impact whatsoever (it's the back office most places). What happens is that both finance people and CS people get burned out from their jobs and end up regretting their decision, and then go to the message boards to ruminate -- and then go to business school to change their career.
For the record I don't think you should do either career with no passion. College is worth the time spent to figure out what you like to do.
Consequatur id eum mollitia ut omnis. Omnis velit optio aut qui. Facilis vero animi ipsam earum vitae incidunt.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...