Hacker News Reader

> Worth noting is that these firms go after mediocre Ivy graduates.

The banks typically hire around the top 1/3 at Ivies, even higher these days given the economy. My friend, a 3.9 physics major at H/Y/P chose banking over research, and so did a lot of his similarly well-qualified classmates. Hard to turn down a job where your starting pay is about what a mid-career researcher with a PhD makes.

Do mid-career researchers make 125k? Or isn't that the starting salary range any more? (I stopped following the industry in early/mid 2008, so I may remember the status quo at the peak...)

That sounds about right. For academia, that's quite high. It's what full professors make, and it's much harder to get tenure at a good (top-50) university than to make 1m+/year in finance.

Right, that was my point, that mid-career researchers don't make the starting salary of elite professionals. The starting salary of a Biglaw associate is 160k at the top firms in the large markets, that's beyond what even a full professor makes in many cases. Which only makes the OP's argument stronger - "hard to turn down a job where you make double what a mid-career researcher with a PhD would make".

One of two possibilities.

1. Your friend was taking a quant job, for which 3.9 and a physics major wouldn't make him overqualified.

2. He had a family connection to put a thumb on the scale and get him the most interesting projects. Banking is a pretty good deal if you have this. You still have to work 100-hour weeks, but after 2 years you can go whereever you want.

"You still have to work 100-hour weeks"

Assuming they are working 50 weeks a year.

50 * 100 = 5000 hours $125,000 / 5000 = $25/hour

Thats half what I make per hour.

Sure they might make more later on, but I'm not interested in giving up that much time for 1. something thats not my project and 2. for so little per hour

This is ignoring two things:

1) The $125,000 is a starting salary, which will go up substantially if the hire proves successful. There are lots of future earnings to consider when working in this type of position.

2) The psychological perception of the work and income. Does the person realize or care that he is working 50 hours a week @ $25/hour, or does the person care that he is making $125,000 annually? I am not a behavioral economist (IANABE?), but I'd have to imagine that this is a huge factor -- the salary vs. hourly mindset.

"50 hours a week @ $25/hour"

I believe its 100 hours a week, which frankly sounds absurd.

My comment is not ignoring either of your points since:

1. I state the salary will go up.

2. The point of my comment was to realize that making 125K is not much if you are working 100hr/week and have no time to enjoy it, thus a high salary might seem great but looking at it on an hourly basis can be useful etc.

In life, generally you can have more money or more time, rarely can you have both. I would rather have more time personally.

Sorry, I misstated and misread your post.

Some people may be very interested in time smoothing. That is spending time now, with the expectation of spending less time in the future because of present time invested. I think PG has talked about this in regards to startups. Work really hard for a concentrated number of years to reap large financial rewards and have the option of never working again.

Regarding the time/money trade off, that is, as you mention, a personal preference. I'd assume the type of person looking for a big law/finance/consulting job is the type of person who places much more weight on having lots of money and being part of the money culture, than enjoying downtime.

Not quant stuff. Straight-up trading. His MD was making $2m a year in his early 30s.

While I agree that those may not be the most interesting jobs, I am curious what you are basing your various assertions on.

>> Worth noting is that these firms go after mediocre Ivy graduates.

Is your definition of mediocre "those who would want jobs like this" and/or "those who would be bad hires in technology"?

>> What is the profile of the 25th-percentile (as opposed to 50th or 75th) Ivy Leaguer?

What leads you to believe that these firms hire the 25th percentile Ivy leaguer?

I worked in consulting for 2 years, and I have since come to believe that startups and other technology companies are more interesting and rewarding places to work. However, dismissing the people who go to work at those places as mediocre, not particularly intelligent drones seems like more of the same HN animosity towards "business types."

I certainly know some intelligent people who've gone into banking and consulting, but one of two things tends to happen. Either (1) they find the work boring and leave quickly, or (2) they're rapidly tapped, before (1) can happen, as the "protege" of someone important and get the best projects-- projects that would usually be given to associates and VPs. Usually (2) happens in the context of a family connection; it's not something that's just handed out.

I think it's "elite" as defined by the typical salaries (say, in the first few years on the job).

Banking salaries go from about 75k (entry-level) to 125k at the 5th year. Bonuses can be from 20 to 500 percent depending on your political success as well as the performance of the firm. Typical is 40-100% in the junior ranks, for a take-home around $200,000 in the fifth year. Decent, but not worth the suffering (and attrition) involved.

Base salaries in finance and consulting are low, even at senior ranks, compared to the level of the position. Finance makes it up in bonus (if you last a year). Consulting makes it up with introductions to large-company CEOs so that if you hit a ceiling, you have options. Law has mediocre bonuses but more restrained hours and minimal travel.

If you count hours 41 to 60 as time-and-a-half and 61-plus as double-time, these jobs actually fare pretty poorly in terms of compensation. At the peak of the finance compensation bubble, first-year bankers at top firms were averaging $140,000 all-in (75k base, 65k bonus). For an 80-hour workweek adjusted accordingly, that's $24.50 per hour. If you get fired on day 364 (a common day for that to happen) and fail your bonus, it can be half of that.

You seem to have a beef with finance and consulting jobs. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that they are the highest paying jobs (outliers aside) for students just out of college.

Top banking jobs are, for people who make it through the first year and collect a bonus, in decent economic times, the highest paying jobs out of school.

However, if you've ever actually worked a 90-or 100-hour week, you know that it's not a pleasant experience. Junior-level banking averages 70-80 hours[1] per week and spikes to 100+. I lived in a "banker dorm" building during 2007 and saw many, many wraith-like analysts coming into the building at 2:30 am after a day's work.

[1] The reason for this is multifaceted, but one of the problems with banking is that it holds the expectation that analysts (a title that has nothing to do with analysis; it just means "junior peon") arrive at 9:00 am, but work travels down the ranks throughout the day and almost always has a next-day deadline. The result of this is that junior-level bankers don't get started on actual work until 3-5 in the afternoon. If they were allowed to work a late-shifted schedule, they could probably cut their hours down to 55-60.

This is actually true, you've got to consider the amount of work they do for the money they get paid. But it's a totally different thing, that they get to work on a lot of stuff that helps them make money. In other words getting an opportunity to work such stuff is what makes those jobs special.

This is true even for software, if you are putting in enough effort in the correct direction and making those decisions right. Then there are good enough odds that you are going to make a lot of money.

Heck, this is true with nearly every profession ever. Do a little more than others and make right decisions. You will be pretty rich someday.

90% of success involves, merely showing up, doing the right thing, doing a little extra, taking an occasional calculated risk and making right decisions. If you can push 12-16 hours with these qualities, trust me there are very few people who can even compete with you. And this is true in any area of work.

To play the other side of this, while I was interning in a big bank my friends in M&A were in work at 6AM and getting in at midnight, every day, even the weekends. They loved it.

Bashing on it because it isn't your cup of tea isn't particularly fair.

Edit: I'd be interested to hear why I'm being downvoted. Some people I've met love the work and want to put the hours in, this is true across all industries - and especially in start-ups.

I believe the author means elite as in the elite firms within their fields, not the overall market.

Agreed. There are many different domains of eliteness.

Elite for me means interesting, impactful work in a free, relaxed setting where I get to grow my skills and put cool projects under my belt.

hey pensive, wonder how many other xoxo'ers are here