If you head over to wallstreetoasis, you'll hear a few of them comment on how software engineers have it made. Grass is always greener on the other side and what not. There's a lot of not so nice things about being in finance, like the work conditions and hours. You have to pay your dues and work like a dog for quite a bit. Outside of high finance, you can go work for F500s, but then you take a significant pay cut. The last option is strategy consulting, which has often been described as more miserable than investment banking due to the travel and the fact that hours never really go down even as you rise up.

Also, the median total compensation is $181,500 USD for an MBA graduate of arguably the best business school in the country. They have a median of four years of work; Assuming they started at 22, and the MBA took two years, they're 28 when receiving this compensation. Unless they have corporate sponsorship, they've also paid around $185,000 for that degree, most likely in loans which will increase the cost. I wonder if a software engineer of similar caliber (smart, dedicated and possessing competent social skills to get into GSB) could pull off a similar compensation at 28 and how his life time earnings would compare. I'd be willing to wager the difference isn't that drastic; if it isn't, it's probably better to just pick the path where the work suits you better.

I think a good grasp of programming combined with being business-savvy and being able to communicate confidently with people can get you pretty far monetarily if you seize the right opportunities; its a useful skill that has the potential to create significant revenue/cut losses for businesses. It seems like some people manage to become well off by becoming consultants and doing just that, but I'm just speaking from second-hand information.