Slave to Prestige?
Hey guys,
So I've been thinking alot lately about the emphasis we (prospective/current finance professionals) put on value judgments of prestige and success. I understand that for many its more than often a struggle to strike a foothold in such a competitive industry, and those value judgments mean less.
But for those of us who've been blessed to have multiple choices within the Investment Banking/Asset Management/Trading spaces, it seems that a certain path is expected if not implicitly forced on our careers. Picking coverage groups based on deal flow rather than interest, trading desks because of exit options and business schools because of rankings and recruiting really limits (at least for me) the pursuit of alternate avenues (within finance) that might be more interesting. Even when it comes down to networking for full-time, I feel immense pressure to go with the most prestigious options rather than the firms I find most interesting and the contacts who've been the most convincing. I've met upper level contacts at smaller firms who impressed me more intellectually and professionally than some of the BSDs we're supposed to emulate.
My question is to those currently in the industry who've had the good fortune to have options among BBs and top business schools... at the end of the day where do you draw the line between professional advancement and interest?
THIS. Absolutely, prestige is not the most important thing at the end of the day. This guy I know, turned down Harvard undergrad to attend Princeton, went to MS M&A instead of GS TMT, then turned down KKR for TPG, then turned down HBS for Stanford, and is now working for a top 5 hedge fund despite getting into a top 3 hedge fund. We thought he was batshit insane every time he made a decision, but he's happy so whatever
Haha I know what you're saying but I was referring to more drastic decision choices. For example, I'm applying to 2+2 when I'd much rather do something like the Masters in Energy prog. @ Tulane. I'd probably much rather work at some small boutique in Houston (or an oil company) than a BB in NYC but family, school etc. pressures mean there's more or less no way I could make those decisions without people making me feel guilty for the rest of my life.
There's no doubt that many people have much more pressing and difficult problems, but when it comes down to what you're going to dedicate 20+ years of your life to... it's definitely a question you have to ask yourself.
With this attitude, one day, some years from now..you gonna wake up and realize that you're miserable because you're living someone else's life and not your own.
You are the one living your life, not your parents, not your friends. You are there 24 hours a day 7 days week, you and only you. If your friends make you feel guilty for pursuing your own dreams instead of their's then you should find new friends. You can't replace your family, but to some degree - you can ignore them, and I believe between the two - that's a much better option.
It's sad to see how many young people can't stand to their family/friends and decides to give up only to realize they should have never done that 10-20 years later when it's probably too late to make the switch.
Independent haha I was being sarcastic but it's hard to pick stuff up on the internet. I think prestige is definitely overrated, since basically the only point of prestige is that it open up doors down the road that provide happiness, etc. in the form of salary, autonomy, etc. In addition to RoyalDutch Shell, Conoco, Exxon Mobil etc., Tudor Pickering, Simmons & Co. and the other top Texas natres boutiques would be perfect for you, they're awesome firms and there's absolutely no reason to feel guilty going that route. If anything you should make your peers feel guilty for doing what everyone else is doing
If you live your life based on what others want it's going to be long and shitty ride. Everyone figures that out eventually.
As an aside, they have BB's in Houston. And much better looking women.
prestige is not the most impt thing, $$$ is. i wouldnt pay to work for TPG. duh.
Cartwright I completely agree. I am working at a BB in Houston for the meantime (hopefully the women are as legit as I've heard), it's more a matter of people making me feel like I'm wasting opportunities if I don't go for the most selective options. I mean I know for example everyone (mostly 18 yos who aren't going to work there anyways) talk about KKR and MS M&A and GS TMT and whatnot but even if I had the opportunity, I have absolutely no interest in any of those "exit opportunities". The way I look at it banking pays well period and for those of us who make it in, we're probably not going to have to worry about paying the electricity bill whether we work at Goldman or Piper Jaffray. At the same time, as much as I'm talking about feeling self-actualized, I wouldn't want my efforts to be significantly undervalued by risky choices. So how much sacrifice is the right amount to work your way up the ladder without being a suicide risk?
To the person who said they wouldn't pay to work for TPG, I think the point of TPG is that the name alone opens up tons of doors to HFs and PE firms for you later on that pay a lot more. Why do people consider Harvard better than state school even though state school pays "more" by virtue of costing less? B/c it opens up doors down the line and the NPV is positive
If you want to work in energy, go to Houston. From what people on WSO say it seems pretty awesome, lower taxes, lower cost of living...
so.... youre working for the npv hence $$$ hence my stance is validated.
To clarify, I'm not really talking about comp., but prestige. I love money as much as the next guy but I'm not worried about being destitute at this point. I just have a really snooty Ivy league family who drilled all this stupid prestige shit into my mind from a young age and it's really hard to make decisions against the general consensus without doubting myself.
It makes more sense to choose the "prestige" option if you're try to raise your socio-economic standing and all that jazz by making alot of money. If you aren't though, how tangible is that god-forsaken word anyways?
F Ro Jo -- I meant as in prestige is a way towards a higher NPV. Just as money isn't an end, but a means towards stability, stuff, housing, and ultimately happiness (whether or not it's true), neither is prestige
Didn't someone on here once presciently write:
"The only exit opportunity is death"?
Live your life to the fullest and with no regrets, because you never, ever take it for granted that there will be a "tomorrow" or "later" for you to enjoy your life. I've spent my entire life till recently always attempting (and succeeding) to pick the "best" (i.e. most prestigious) option - but, for my purposes at least, every part of the way it felt like a struggle. Aside from vanity, I certainly recognized I was not ENJOYING my life. Therefore, I started making compromises - taking risks, if you will. Small steps at first - but the "path" I'm currently on is more and more off the "2+2+2" path and you know what?
I'm loving it all the friggin way (incidentally, the financial upside is much, much greater than anything I could have hoped to obtain in finance - including megafund PE gigs). If I died tomorrow, I'd be content with knowing I made an effort to pursue the opportunities that I enjoyed. My only regret would be that I didn't start earlier and spent twenty-some odd years trying to figure out how to get into and subsequently debating between HY & P, and GS, MS and JPM.
For one, money and prestige are often paired, but not always. I worked with plenty of loud-mouthed S&T guys who wouldn't know a book if you slapped them with one but could afford to donate a library if they so chose. I don't consider them prestigious at all, despite their millions. They were effing retarded and I say that in the most literal sense of the word.
Two, prestige is both what others think and what you think about your position. Often the latter is driven by your assumptions about the former, and that's a sad reality.
I am saying that you should not give a flying fish fck about what others think about your level of "prestige". It's hard to do, but we would all benefit by not being so damn insecure. That's what prestige comes down to, insecurity. It has no other use but to make you feel better about yourself. I suffer from the same thing, to some degree. But certainly wish I didn't, and I wouldn't do something at odds with my ambition because of it.
These two sentences pretty much sum up the topic! I would only bad - makes you feel better about yourself... in the eyes of others. Which is quite sad, really... Like buying a hummer in the hopes it will make you look tough. Or working entire life for the purpose of buying some ridiculously overpriced house in a boring neighborhood, which you hate, only to have the opportunity to tell others that you live there.
But at the same time, its very hard to resolve the guilt of not doing what the parents/family/society want. We are all social creatures after all. We need approval of others.
I feel like there are a lot of people on WSO that are going to be driving a Ferrari at 40, with a 25 year old girlfriend, that hates their fucking life.
However, if you think money's gonna make you happy, go for it. I believe in a happy medium, if you will, and I also believe if you are good at what you do and enjoy it, it doesnt matter whether you're at WF or GS, you'll make money (maybe not as much, but when it comes down to $4m vs $5m and being happy vs being somewhat content, I choose the former).
Haha you're really optimistic about the career opportunities of people @ WSO. I know there's a good supply of smart and ambitious people but I don't think that many are going to be driving Ferraris... or having hot young girlfriends.
And as for the money aspect, the people who are the hungriest for money for the sake of money think it's going to raise their status. Which is sad, because new money will always be new money.
Personally, I'd like to find the path where I can make some tangible improvement or impact rather than just a fat bonus. If people still talk about you after you're dead you've achieved a hell of a lot more than leaving a few paltry mill. for your kids that the government is going to take half of anyways.
This, coming from someone with the logo of Ralph Lifschitz's clothing company as his avatar...
When you boil it down, prestige = who is in your network. Some schools, banks, PEGs have more achieved alumni. As a result, you are plugged into that network more easily than someone who wasn't at those places. That being said, you can network with those individuals without being part of their organic network.
i have the most bannana points in this thread thus the most credibility i say
I grew up in Houston and yes it is definetly the best place to be for energy but it is far from being an awesome city. My family would disown me if they read this post, thank god it's an anonymous forum. From a pure standard of living, taking as many factors into account as possible, my rankings go 1.) Austin 2.)Chicago. Just though i'd shed some light on the reality of Houston living, please don't refute my statement if you are a 22 y/o banker who's only experiences in Houston consist of going to Midtown for 5 hours a weekend....
What about a 23 year old who goes to W alabama icehouse/vintage for most of the weekend? All kidding aside, I made the move from New Orleans to Houston and would say that Houston, even with its 4 million or so people, cant touch Nola in any regard other than better career opportunities. Going to check out Austin this weekend, cant wait.
My $0.02...
Going to schools like Harvard and working fort GS and the like should be opportunities to gain the best experience possible from insitutions that have the best facilities.
Sadly, people seem to have this need to have some sort of external measure of how well they are doing as compared to others. Thus the need to constantly seerk out the "prestige" factor to add to their equation of F(x)= A+ Bx1+ Bx2+..., where F(x)= "My propensity to be better than you" and each factor int he equation is either a school or a particular job, e.t.c.
Just get your own internal measure of how well you are doing and you will be all the happier.
Honestly it's really hard for you to understand that? When we live in such a competitive world like today, fighting against other brilliant young kids to move forward with our careers, is it really shocking for you to see why people need to compare themselves to others? Why we're all so competitive and always looking for the 'best' option we can get?
Honestly? I don't. If you're looking to blame someone then I don't think it should be the kids playing this game, rather the ones inventing it.
I don't think people read/understand what I was saying. I couldn't give two shits what other people think of me. However, I don't want to feel like I've wasted talent that could have been put to greater use.
Obviously what we do doesn't feed starving children in Cambodia or put clothing on the back of orphans but there are definitely places where one can make a more resounding impact and I don't want narrow my view so much that I place a cap on future accomplishments or contributions. It isn't about working at GS or going to HBS, it's about the doors those places might possibly unlock to more meaningful contributions. As crazy as I've heard GS culture is, it's undeniable that they hold an alumni list chalk full of individuals who've done alot more for the world than spreading comps and writing pitch books. As much as HBS might be full of pompous snobs (or may not be), it has been an incomparable breeding ground of innovation for decades.
What I'm saying is that I do to some degree feel it's selfish of me to shun opportunities like that because I want to avoid pompous assholes in the short-term.
That post you were referring to was addressed to the poster above that post, not to you. Anyway saying that you don't give two shits what other people think of you isn't true because we all care to some degree, the real question is - how much it affects you.
What talent do you waste and by doing (or not doing) what exactly? I'm not sure I followed through. I think that if you are lucky enough to know what you would like to do then you should simply go ahead and start doing it. I do think that if you aren't exactly sure and still wondering then following 'the path' is probably the best next thing to do.
The thing about life is that we only get to live once, we can't (not yet at least) go back after we tried something and relive choosing now a different path. There is simply no right or wrong answer here, and sometimes you will get to make a 'wrong' decision only to realize months/years later that it was the best decision you've made in your entire life. Of course back then you wouldn't have the perspective to know that.
You don't need to convince me (or anyone else for that matter) why choosing to do GS/HBS/whatever first is better, if you believe that's what you would like to do then simply go ahead and do it, but that's for you to decide, not for anyone else. I just think that people should be motivated to do something because they absolutely love it, even if it means being selfish (or anything else). With that being said, I'm a selfish person so maybe that's one of the reasons it fits for me, but not necessarily would fit you.
Please do not group us (current financial professionals) with you (Turbo Douche college kid). Don't be such a dolt.
Thanks,
managment
Exquisite phrase sir
Holy fuck bro! You're a Senior Neanderthal already????
You are a fucking tool. As everyone knows I always give respect to the senior people on this site who give good advice: monty09, HPM, MBP, Eddie etc. You are not "management" if you're using the phrase "Turbo Douche". I'm in the process of networking for FT/applying to B-school so this was a valid question (and very well answered by most people). Maybe I'll be in Houston and maybe I won't be but I definitely appreciate the advice and confirmation of people in this thread.
shut up, stupid.
GI, as for your reply to my comment, I meant relatively (compared to gen pop) speaking there will be a lot of people driving Ferarris at 35.
I also think "new money" gets a bad rep. Yea, a lot of people with new money show it off and get flashy/douchey with it, but there is also a good number of smart, successful people with new money that stay very lowkey (thus the flashy/douchey ones stand out).
That's exactly the point about "new money". It's about class. If you make millions but you still can't describe a Degas, or discuss literature, or talk about philosophy without reppin' Ayn Rand you're still in the same social class you started in; except now with a tacky red Ferrari and an ill-fitting off the rack 3000 dollar suit.
EDIT* = Wow that was completely true, but the very possibly the most pretentious thing I've ever said. Mea Culpa.
Sorry dude, but you are the one talking about flashy "brand name" firms and schools to impress your parents/friends. You don't need money to talk about literature or philosophy. Nor do you need a brand name MBA to know a lot about business.
I'm guessing you come from money, because only "old money" people refer to "new money" as such.
You should learn some humility op.
Oh you mean like the leagues of HBS grads that ran Wall-Street into the ground and took down Enron / WorldCom / Tyco on the side?
They're good with innovating alright - making stuff up on the balance sheet, that is.
And this isn't about dick-riding specific firms or HBS or anything else, it's about the general distinction that separates the firms everyone targets from specialty shops and good MBA schools from top MBA schools, and the value that we attach to that distinction. I just find that people assume that the higher caliber student and professional you are, the more you are obliged to join firms/industries/groups/schools that mirror your own success. The whole point of success should be that it opens doors for me, not that it makes a narrow world even narrower.
I want to attend a party where people stand around and discuss literature.
Yet I'm sure 9/10 times you would rather party with Charlie Sheen. We all do
LIBOR, can I use your last 2 lines of the above post as my sig? That's just awesome.
go for it
Also, for anyone who still thinks investment banking is prestigious, you'll change your tune when you see your HBS-grad MD all but fellating a college drop-out from the midwest who wound up in a C-level position at some shitty little company that your firm is trying to pitch.
Great advice from alot of people. I don't really get your point about the RL logo (I play polo it has nothing to do with the brand) but regardless... I'm aware that investment banking or Goldman Sachs or Harvard or any other trivial brand names don't make anyone who they are. I'm aware that I have to be at peace with my own choices. I post however because I want to hear from other people who've taken the road less-travelled (or even the conventional route) like you and Econ and HPM, Midas, LIBOR etc. It's inspiring to hear you guys' stories and know there are many possible routes.
What I don't give a fuck about on the other hand is random sad fuck-ups who think their opinion matters on subjects like these when they post endless "GS TMT vs. BX vs. MS M&A" threads while jerking it to Charlie Sheen in Wall Street in their mother's basements.
In conclusion, thanks and kudos to all the well-read and well-versed professionals on WSO who continue to give good advice and help a kid like me avoid wasting my life on predictable choices.
Lots of good advice in this thread. Ideally, I think all of us wish we could give a f*ck less what others think, but it's hard to do. At the end of the day, finding a job you're truly passionate about is much more important than "prestige." At 40, you don't want to be some guy at the prestigious firm who hates his job -- it's just not worth it.
New money, old money, thug money it all spends the same.
HPM - was really hoping you were quoting some obscure but very poignant rap song with this.
The only predictable choice is the one you make hourly to come back with another similarly conceited, pseudo-appreciative comment sucking up to Certified Users on this forum hoping you won't get more monkey shit for how contradictory and arrogant your posts come across.
Buddy, I couldn't care less whether I have points or not on some internet forum. I'd like the opportunity to come here for advice that's all. You want to call me arrogant, that's fine. But I've fought as hard (or harder) than anyone to get to where I am now. 3 years ago I was sitting in a dean's office getting kicked out of a top engineering program. I fought to get into a non-target biz program, get basically perfect marks and get to the school I'm at today. If I want people's advice as to where best to continue my career, I think that's more than fair. I came very close to fucking up my entire life and now that I have options between "good" and "best", it isn't hard to imagine why I'd be hesitant to reject the most selective programs, firms and career paths. Yes, the concept of "prestige" is flawed, yes we should all live for our own goals, but when you've been at a point where anything is a pipe dream, you want to achieve as much as you possibly can as soon as possible. I know there are people who've made it to all possible avenues of finance on this site, and it's important for me to see what similarities (in terms of personality types, long-term goals etc.) align themselves with mine.
It's not arrogance to say that after all I've been through, I don't need advice from people younger, at worse schools with worse marks (not talking about you Ad Posse). That's why Patrick created certified users; to give good proven advice.
If you were about to make a decision based on "prestige" I would ask you one question... What is your #1 Goal in life?
My #1 goal is to be happy. I had six superdays this recruiting season and one of them was at a small boutique. Going into the interview they were close to my last choice, leaving the interview they were my number one choice. I was offered that day and I accepted before waiting to hear back from other banks (which are better known). Why? Because the culture of the boutique is completely congruent with my personality. I felt like I would be the happiest working there, and I know that a happy me = better work.
People all over this forum obsess about who gets what exit ops from where. What gets lost in the discussion is that you have to do a damn good job in whatever group your in to have a chance at a top exit. If you do a shitty job for GS TMT, don't think your "prestige" will lock you up that HF position. If you go to a place where you are happy, rather than deciding based on the name on the door, you will put yourself in the best possible position to do great work WHICH IS THE ACTUAL PREREQUISITE FOR EXITING!!!
Go to a place where you can give it your all. If you are gunning for an early exit then picking between offers based on prestige makes sense. Just make sure that you aren't going down a specific path because someone once told you that "smart kids like you should get a job on wall street because its the best." Make sure you actually believe it; otherwise, those 100/hr weeks are going to get long fast.
You chose some shitty boutique over some BB, good fucking job. Want a cookie?
You chimps talk like choosing boutiques/MM/[insert shitty firm here] over Goldman or MS is easy but seriously, have any of you ever experienced it? Do you know how it feels when your listener gasps when you mention you work at Goldman? Do you know how it feels all other parents (regardless of their relation to you) view you like a God? I remember one time when I was at my chinese friend's reunion dinner and some random parents with a super hot daughter where telling her "ching chang chong he woking at Goldmen-Saks! You talk to him and make him happy and maybe he marry u!". FML
Contrary to popular belief, prestige is extremely important - there's a reason why kids choose ivy leagues, even though they can get "just as a good education at UC Berkeley".
Just out of curiosity,but do you really want to have a woman marrying you based on the company you work for?
Wow, well said illiniPride. SB for you.
Thanks econ. Needed a quick rant to break my all-nighter.
Wow, even more impressive that you're that articulate at the tail-end of an all-nighter...
Honestly by the end of senior year you won't give a fuck about prestige. Plebeians do not know shit about banking. They are part of the big bad bank witch hunt or they want to work at The Goldman Sachs.
I've been meaning to create a thread addressing just this but I've been too swamped with work...
Particularly recently with the whole "why do people choose megafunds" thread, I get the increasing sense of people pandering to their own insecurities. That entire thread is about how great the MM PE space is vs. megafunds. Which to be quite honest, I'm not qualified to opine on. But I would say, no one on here is qualified to make that comparison unless and until they've worked in both environments. I don't buy the "well I have friends at megafunds" angle, because most of the time people talk about work to their friends, its bitching about work. No one is out with friends and is telling them about how awesome it was to do X, Y, Z.... particularly when said friends are at a "lesser" (note the quotes) PE firm.
At the end of the day, its for the prestige of the megafund. That why people go there. All those people on here singing their praise regarding MM PE experience are selling their own book. They are all at MM PE firms and likely didn't have access to Meagfund opportunities... correct me if I'm wrong? No disrespect to any of you; you're all very knowledgeable, are at the top 10% of us in finance. You've imparted quite a bit of knowledge on WSO and I attribute much of the track I am on currently because of what I've picked up here on WSO. But to be quite frank, none of you have in fact had access to a megafund opportunity. And as human nature tends to be, you value your own experience over that which you didn't have the opportunity to pursue. You can say you're un-bias, but I don't really believe thats possible.
Next all the people who decry chasing "prestige" over substance.... for one, the "prestigious" places have the reputations they do for a reason. Many of the monkeys on here chasing prestige are doing so for the sake of their own self-esteem (or lack thereof) and social validation. But candidly, Harvard, GS, KKR, Carlyle... open doors for you that would otherwise be a brick wall. Literally.
So while people on here say that people are too obsessed with "prestige" and "KKR over Providence isn't going to change where you are in life", that may be true to some extent. Yes, you are at the top 95 percentile of Americans. But the opportunities and advantages afforded to the pedigreed is head and shoulders above the non-pedigreed counterparts. And for the large part, its a binary variable... there is no in between. You either are or you are not.
The sum of these opportunities across the span of one's life (Harvard vs. Cornell, Goldman vs. Jeffries, KKR vs. MacQuarie Capital) compound with every step through life and when you get to the other side of your career, the pedigreed are the Partners at KKR/Paulson/Tudor and the non-pedigreed are MDs at Jeffries/Citi.
Now I'm not going so far as to say that the pedigreed coast through life... they obviously have to work their asses off to get into top schools, they have to be sharp enough to get into top banks, they have to be the cream of the crop amongst their peers even at those top banks to make it to elite HF/PE. Its not guaranteed, but it is possible... probably even. For the non-pedigreed, to get into GS TMT or GS FIG with a 3.6 from NYIT is nearly impossible and high improbable. To be at one of the incubator groups for elite HF/PE not being from a target school (which we've already established is not at all the norm, but I'm sure has happened from time to time), you will very likely already be docked because despite being at in the same group as your peers, you're not from a similarly regarded school. And so on... Thats just the way it goes. I was once under the impression that once you're in the industry your school/GPA stops mattering, but to be competitive amongst the highest areas of this field at a junior level, all of those things are taken into consideration.
Feel free to disagree, but I've been around Wall Street quite a bit. I've worked at bulge bracket banks, I've worked at boutiques, I've interviewed everywhere from a $600 million HF FoF to a few of the preeminent PE firms... the latter of which were literally stolen opportunities and ones that were very short lived when it was discovered I wasn't the son of a CalPERs portfolio manager or a 3.9 from Hotchkiss -> Yale -> Goldman.
It's not that I disagree with what you're saying, but I'm starting to get a bit sick of this 'open doors' thing. I mean, for how long you are supposed to be doing things just so you will have opened doors for your future? Alright you go to ivy school and work your ass off so you open yourself a door to land a good job. You go ahead and work 2 years as an analyst in some BB to open more doors, then you do 2 years of PE or get a MBA to open more doors and so on, am I the only one thinking it got ridiculous? Does it even end there?
Sure I agree that for someone who doesn't have a clue what he'd like to do he better off following 'the path' and keep 'opening doors', but if lets say I know that PE is something I'd like to do, why shouldn't I just go ahead and do PE? get experience and then in few years I might actually start to make some money as well. Achievements like this aren't by far more important? I mean at the end of the day, it comes down to the simple fact that the partners want to know if I can make them money or not, am I wrong?
I think there are some people who would actually benefit more working for a MM than MF but it really depends on the personality of the individual. That being said, I guess for the majority of the people MF would fit better simply because they don't have a personality.
The pedigreed people at Tudor? I actually agree with what you're saying but Tudor or most macro shops for that matter probably isn't the best example of a place where pedigree matters. Sure, you're more likely to have worked in rates at a top BB if you went to Harvard but PTJ went to UVA and was a futures broker while Jim Pallota ("RIP") went to UMass Amherst. Not trying to undermine your point, just saying exceptions can be very common in some areas.
Dude, founding members of firms are not an accurate proxy for what it takes to get your foot in the door. I'm generally referring to the upper echelons of high-finance.
there are exceptions to every rule but generally prestige wins out(duh) sure I say that i would be happy at a place with better culture, but I am extremely ambitious like many of your here and would give up my left hand to clean bathrooms at GS, RenTech, Tudor... if it meant a better chance for me to work there doing what I want
General question, directed to those who think prestige is so huge: What about all the people who lacked "prestige," but were able to build business empires from the ground up? These people are a million times more successful than the multitude of Ivy grads who wind up in good, but not great, jobs.
Again, I agree with you, but macro or pure trading shops are some of the places in the upper echelons of finance where prestige matters the least, relatively speaking (definitely not in the same way as it might in megafund PE).
I dont know, most of us are a few years out of college. We don't have a proven track record that overshadows/makes irrelevant our pedigree. Thats mainly why pedigree does matter so much.
Yes, there are incredibly successful people who have no pedigree and there are complete failures who checked all the pedigree boxes.
My point is, and you guys should already know this, the world is an easier place for beautiful people. Pedigree is a way to make your ugly mug more bearable... and make the world a little easier to navigate, given you've got everything else going for you as well.
For me to make it on the "upper echelon" track, its an uphill battle. I'll be an outlier. Not so for my well heeled counterpart.
Right there with you. But it's nice to know there are outliers.
@Marcus: What is your #1 goal in life?
To do/be something exceptional. Thats obviously a moving target based on who your group of peers are.
But honestly, it would be to get to a level where you no longer have any peers and there's no more subjectivity to the concept of being exceptional. To have the power and resources to make a lasting impression on the world mainly through philanthropy and creativity (read: thought innovation).
There's one particular quote which I really like: "My mother said to me, 'If you are a soldier, you will become a general. If you are a monk, you will become the Pope.' Instead, I was a painter, and became Picasso."
I haven't read every post here, but here's my take.
Prestige matters when it comes to opening up doors and opportunities - doesn't matter if it's finance, sports, arts, politics, whatever.
HOWEVER, whether you derive a big part of your self-esteem and emotional well-being from having prestige (or the lack thereof) is really a personal thing, and in a way I think most of us will find out (or have found out) that deeper seeded things like this have little to do with prestige, money, or anything external.
Again, if you want to work in finance, going to a great school, working at top tier banks and funds -- it all helps immensely when it comes to opportunities. The less prestige you have, the harder you'll have to work - and the beauty is, it's entirely possible. But it's certainly much harder without pedigree.
However, what's more important is whether you see it as it is, or get too wrapped up in the pursuit for prestige, etc. There's a huge difference between "I'm going to go after what gives me the best opportunities" and "If I don't get XYZ, I will be miserable and conversely I will only be happy if I get XYZ."
I guess in plain English what I'm saying is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with going after prestige and pedigree -- for the practical benefits (opportunities) that it can potentially bring. But the flipside is in that pursuit - to not get too wrapped up emotionally or have your entire sense of self-worth and ego tied up in that pursuit. Easy for me to say I suppose, but a much harder thing for many of us to actually do, as getting too wrapped up without perspective is an easy trap that we all fall into (myself included).
Or another way to put it - I'm sure some of you guys have already witnessed this working with very rich people (MDs, partners, C-level clients, investors, etc.). If you're observant enough, you'll see that some of these guys on the surface may have it all, maybe even stuff you dreamed about - shitloads of money, planes, toys, endless supply of coke and hookers, a king's throne in their office, knee pads for people who have to meet them, and a family that makes them look good at charity/social/political shindigs.
But many of you probably have seen first hand that whether these guys are happy or miserable with themselves has little to do with what they have. Some of them are happy. Some are miserable and insufferable. In a way, it's a real gift because many of you in finance get to interact with people who are in the top 1% income bracket in the US, and who seemingly have everything and have gotten everything they could have ever wanted -- and yet, you'd be hard pressed to say that they are any happier or any more miserable than anyone else. And if you really think about specific MDs/partners/clients you've dealt with and ask yourself why one person is happier and the other is miserable - it probably has little to do with the pedigree of their life's work.
Again, prestige matters when it comes to opportunities, but if it matters for your emotional well-being and ego, then it can be a pretty dark place to be in.
bigimot... most college grads are still scrounging by well into their 3-5 years out of college. You're acting like you're 5 years from retirement and people are still expecting you to do things to open doors for you.
I saw a article on Yahoo that was titled "The 6 Smartest, Highest Paying Jobs", when I looked at the list, being about 2-3 years out of college, I will make more than the top 3 careers combined this year.
In the first few years on Wall Street, you essentially do no work that will facilitate accurate judgement of how good you will be at HF/PE investing. So its only logical that the current recruiting process be as absurd as it. I always think about how ridiculous it is to recruit kids 8 months after they've started their jobs. But as an analyst, even if they ran that process 3 weeks before their 3 analyst years were up, doubtful they'd come to materially different conclusions as to who to hire and who to ding.
Do you mind sharing about your job? You got me curious :)
Honestly I also think it's absurd to work as a monkey for so long and I guess that's pretty much the base of my perspective. Personally I just wouldn't make it for so long, I can see why you need about 2-3 years to get a perspective and a sense on things but beyond that...just no way.
EDIT: @Alex & Bigi: I wish I could give SBs to both of the above posts, but I only have 1 so it goes to Alex. I agree with everything you both said.
I agree with Marcus.
Finance is no different than just about any other career. More important than talent, pedigree, etc. is sustained commitment over the long haul - that still may not guarantee success, but it's almost always a prerequisite.
When do most people first become MDs and partners? In their early 30s, maybe even mid-30s. In other words, it's usually around 10+ years in the business. And even then, they are just newbie MDs/partners. When do many of these folks peak in their careers (i.e. become the real rainmakers?) -- in their 40s and 50s, some even older. In other words, by the time they reach the peak, they have 20+ years in the business (that's about as long as the age of some folks here!).
While I agree that this is generally how it works and how long it takes for people to progress within the industry, personally I'd see myself as a complete failure if I'm becoming a real rainmaker only by the time I'm 40s.
@Marcus:
Completely my opinion, but it sounds like to me your goal of doing something exceptional, peerless even, requires you to be the owner of whatever it is you are doing. It's hard to be peerless if you are working for someone else.
If that is your goal, why spend so much time climbing the prestige ladder. Why not get a few years of training, save some money, make connections with a few wealthy individuals (shouldn't be hard at any decent bank), and strike out on your own?
I mean I don't see myself achieving this by 30. So I've got no problem working for someone in the meantime.
I've got no problem learning the business, making connections, learning finance (which is something I genuinely enjoy), etc... and more than anything else earning the credentials.
Fair enough. I dunno, I guess I have a hard time seeing myself wanting to wait that long to get started. I'm also assuming that I'll be able to develop my own track record which speaks for itself. To each their own I guess. Different paths....
When do you see yourself starting your own business?
Slave to prestige? How about slave to excellence instead? Strive to be the best, in whatever it is you have a passion for, and the prestige (and happiness and money) will come.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe being an MD at a place like Simmons or the CEO at Exxon is just as prestigious as just about anything else?
You don't need us (or your parents, or anyone else, for that matter) to justify your life choices. Grow a pair and live your life the way YOU want. Pull a Charlie Sheen, man, lol.
Lastly, you clearly have some of the classic personality flaws of the entitled, arrogant wealthy kid. You might want to work on that...
Well said...
Interesting thread. Must say based on the posts and the overall the attitude of the banking folks on here, it's clear prestigious plays a major major role. Which would make sense since its a very relationship driven business. Likewise as Marcus explains it is very hard to develop any track record as your following orders most of the time.
Would say on the trading side of things, the only time prestige plays a factor is if you think "the master" who is guiding you will give you the knowledge to one day make bank. Beyond that it is your P&L and how much of that P&L you take home.
Lots of banking kids want to goto HBS and work at a megafund or make partner at Goldman one day. Would say most trading kids want to make bank and then pull a "charlie sheen".
Wonder how those in the consulting/hedge fund/vc side of things think about prestige.
^--- so I take it SAC/Soros/Paulson look at ASU & SocGen FICC just as much as they look at Harvard/GS FICC to find their next wave of talent? (I am a little ignorant in this area, so feel free to correct me if my presumptions are off base)
Prestige matter everywhere, not just in banking and not just in finance.
^--- No, I just don't dream of working for Soros/Paulson/ect. Is that the end game? Seven figure paychecks by early 30's sounds pretty nice, but your upside is still limited. You have to fight tooth & nail to get there and you're still working for someone else.
Don't know about you, but that is not for me.
Im generalizing as to what the WSO bell curve looks like.
So whats your ideal path?
Cant say I know. I cant even guarantee it ends it finance. But I do know it ends in ownership. If I see an opportunity, I wont hesitate to go after it.
As Bondarb and others have mentioned on here before. Going to Soros/Paulson/SAC is no clear guarantee your going to make bank. So if you could make bank at SocGen why leave? why goto HBS/Paulson if your on the path to making bank.
As I said unless your going to somewhere that the master can teach you their secrets, I do not think the jump for prestige alone is worth it.
When the time is right, the wine is right I treat you right, you talk slick, I beat you right
^--- thats because you possess no attributes that in any way resemble pedigree.
Dont get me wrong, I don't either, but I'm not bitter about it.
Tell me I'm wrong.
I am not sure I follow you here... You mean pedigree as in alpha male? You think being physically and socially dominant in a group makes you less likely to have guilt feeling for doing something not the way parents/friends want? Well, its hard to say, for one to become socially dominant and have genuine influence over others (think of high school) you would probably need to show less hesitation and care for "norms". On the other hand, somebody may have all "pedigree attributes" as you call them, but be very constrained and unhappy.
The self delegated alpha males I remember from school are not doing that well now as I know. So maybe sticking to norms and societal standards help have benefits too.
I dont know WTF you're talking about alpha males (although they obviously make you feel inadequate). We're talking about pedigree. Andover Prep --> Harvard --> GS --> KKR = pedigree; there are a variety of personalities at Andover, Harvard, GS and KKR.
There's also a bunch of a bunch of drama fags and programming dorks from HS that are not doing to well either. So don't be so eager pat yourself on the back for being a fucking loser throughout high school (and probably still from what it sounds like). It doesn't have as much to do with your social personality as it does your drive, ambition and dedication.
What are you talking about Amphibia? Pedigree as in Top Ivy, top BB and megafund PE.
i think lately this has been dwindling
i think for me it's always a no brainer that you'd choose interest over prestige, the problem is when you have interest in both.
i spent a lot of time considering finance or becoming a professional dancer. must sound crazy to some people, but i'm pretty sure if i didn't have a interest in trading i would've actually done it, even tho i'd most likely be poor. In the end i think financial services being the more conventional route was a factor in my decision, but i most certainly would not have done it if there was no interest.
It's like what most people said here - you have a better chance of succeeding at whatever you have an interest in, even if you have opportunity to take the glorified track. Life is too short!
Sorry, mistook the meaning of pedigree for some different context.
"Drive, ambition, dedication" - I wonder if in the IB community the word "ambitious" carries a predominantly positive attribute? Because among other things, it also signals a high sense of entitlement.
Temporibus vitae ab velit aperiam adipisci nam nemo sunt. Placeat saepe ipsam velit numquam nisi illo natus quae. Itaque et sint minus repudiandae.
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...
Eos cum eos placeat quo voluptas sunt. Magni dolore sed aut excepturi magni quam. Exercitationem commodi qui quidem molestias hic iste architecto.
Officiis provident eveniet et quisquam. Dolor veniam omnis sunt voluptatum corrupti assumenda aut nostrum. Sequi occaecati qui perferendis qui. Corrupti odit deserunt error vel consequatur voluptatem aut. Beatae est voluptas et quo. Ut sunt eum porro debitis qui.
Est enim dolorum nesciunt voluptatem quam. Ipsa nesciunt eum qui atque amet harum modi dolorem. Autem eum veritatis ducimus in et. Quasi ipsum qui temporibus sint totam vitae ea provident. Ipsum sed accusantium dolore. Veniam beatae sed et exercitationem.
Impedit vel officiis rerum voluptas cum temporibus aut. Iste ut blanditiis ut quasi.
Aut repellat qui aut explicabo enim non ut. Sapiente sint dignissimos sit et nobis quisquam sed. Qui quam ab aut.
Velit repellat sunt et ut adipisci illo harum. Impedit officia voluptatem facere voluptatibus molestiae. Est et doloribus reprehenderit unde voluptatem. Ut natus ut est sapiente dicta. Aut nam atque officiis vel nihil fugiat soluta delectus. Sunt aut deleniti quidem.
Quo qui ab voluptatem suscipit est soluta sunt. Et voluptatibus ea beatae quo. Quos sunt nulla repellat ut.
Est earum asperiores similique ut impedit corporis laborum quisquam. Cumque qui quo rem eum ut. Et sunt ut ipsum omnis quia et ducimus. Odit reprehenderit eius odio corporis.
At quis consequatur ducimus nobis. Corrupti voluptates tempora itaque incidunt ut. Sapiente modi repellendus adipisci beatae hic atque rem.
Quod maiores explicabo dolor perspiciatis deserunt ut. Ducimus ullam quisquam voluptatum eius ipsum nobis. Eum ut culpa dolores dolorem.
Explicabo tempore consequatur voluptatem aperiam quidem. Facilis dolore consequatur rerum cum. Aut dicta voluptatem eius. Quod incidunt saepe dolores maxime consequatur a.
Qui qui aut quisquam dolore. Aut minus et earum totam consequatur neque. Atque quaerat reiciendis sint minus.
Voluptas in eaque sit consequatur ut sed iure atque. Occaecati temporibus sed dolorem odit consequatur qui sed. Quia eum hic quasi iste et. Officiis dolorem expedita sed accusamus voluptatibus ex sint est. Officiis perferendis qui provident quasi fugit et.