Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

wesdesilvestro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 325 posts

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#61

Post by n0nc3 »

amb23 wrote: post #9

The problem with prestige is that you, yourself, may not care about it, but those around it still do and still use it for social signaling. That affects the rationality of the decisions you make around your career in serious ways. I think one of the problems around targeting prestige vs. targeting excellence is that we know what it takes to do something prestigious, but excellence is hard to define, and generally com…

Humans have always and will always seek standing in their community.

At the moment, that standing is achieved by participating in institutions that serve the oligarchy (BigLaw, BigTech, etc.)

This is a trivial problem to solve. Just create excellence-based communities, like the Linux kernel development community.

The principal obstacle is that working folks don't have the spare resources to create financial stability for high achievers in these communities. We need the approval from the oligarchy, manifested through corporate sponsorship.

It would be nice if Satoshi would come out of the woodwork and bankroll alternatives, the way Signal has been bankrolled.

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#62

Post by ditonal »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #20
notacoward wrote: post #6

I find two things to disagree with in this article. First is the premise that equally high compensation is offered elsewhere in each industry. I don't know about finance or consulting, but at least for FAANG it doesn't seem to be true. Second is the overlooked explanation that it's headroom - not prestige - that accounts for the difference. I'll provide an example that illustrates both points: me. When I went from Re…

I don’t know why the article’s author thinks prestige is about anything other than money/power (for the population as a whole). People would rather work at FAANG than Stripe because FAANG will get you a lot more pay and connections. And people know that, so they will value people from FAANG for it. But it comes from the root fact that FAANG makes a ton of net income per employee, same as some finance/consulting firms…

I have no idea how Stripe became the low paying non prestigious startup job in this conversation. They are a big prestigious company that pays a ton and is soon to IPO. I actually consider Stripe to be FAANG as far as the original acronym was for stocks but in practice is for “high paying prestigious tech companies.”

A better pick for “non prestigious but good company “ might be Khan Academy, which has an amazing service with great engineers but as far as I know doesn’t make or pay a ton.

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#63

Post by hailwren »

whimsicalism wrote: post #52
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I mean the actual starting salaries based on employment data from universities themselves tell us there’s only a marginal difference in those who graduate between the institutions. If you look at the degrees themselves as a form of capital investment, Ivy League schools don’t translate into “paying off,” as it were.

> No, I mean the actual starting salaries based on employment data from universities themselves tell us there’s only a marginal difference in those who graduate between the institutions. Not only is that not true, but Harvard new grads make substantially more than the average BA holder, including people who are 2 decades into their career.

Yes, and pairwise multivariate comparisons make the gap even larger. (i.e. considering two engineering students or two visual arts students etc)

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#64

Post by hailwren »

whimsicalism wrote: post #23
wayoutthere wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in consulting, and I’d say the top-end in consulting is still higher and much more of a safe bet. It’s not uncommon for people in consulting to be making $500k-$1m annually by the age of 40. If you’re a partner, compensation can be significantly higher than that; in the $2M-20M range. I think there was a golden era of startups capturing value from the old guard, but that era is largely over IMO. All of those t…

For the typical Harvard student, tech is better paying than consulting unless you are an extraordinarily successful consultant. > It’s not uncommon for people in consulting to be making $500k-$1m annually by the age of 40 This is not "uncommon" in FANG either (just take a look at the salary charts), and if anything can be reached earlier. > there was a golden era of startups capturing value from the old guard, but th…

5 year EV is much lower in tech than finance for Harvard grads. I'm not sure ab consulting.

Consulting and tech have similar starting salaries, but consider finance/hedge fund engineer starting tc is about 3-4x tech for top 3 grads rn.

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#65

Post by chrisgd »

Goldman, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan have all moved down market and lead most IPOs these days. Everyone else is fighting for 30% or less of the fees. As a CEO, you can’t lose your job if they mess up your IPO. But if you choose Jefferies and they blow it, you can get fired. There is a term for this that is escaping me right now. There is also a potentially easier path to get an intro as the Goldman brand name carries a lot of weight. All this to say though, there is significant competition within there but if you work there for 3 years you probably work as hard as you would on your own company, but probability weighted income is higher and you have more exit opportunities. I think it makes sense to go work there if you can.

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#67

Post by chrisgd »

whimsicalism wrote: post #5

Much of this blog post speaks to my experience (probably because we went to the same school at pretty much the same time). That said, I think the thesis is a bit overstated. The reason many more Harvard CS students talk about Google > Stripe is not because Stripe is not prestigious (it obviously is, and plenty of super talented students go there). It's because Google hires a ton of Harvard CS grads, whereas many late…

Stock options in an already public company carries a lot of weight relative to a company that it doesn’t seem they are in a hurry to go public.

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#68

Post by formercoder »

shuckles wrote: post #24
wayoutthere wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in consulting, and I’d say the top-end in consulting is still higher and much more of a safe bet. It’s not uncommon for people in consulting to be making $500k-$1m annually by the age of 40. If you’re a partner, compensation can be significantly higher than that; in the $2M-20M range. I think there was a golden era of startups capturing value from the old guard, but that era is largely over IMO. All of those t…

It is not uncommon for people in technology to be making $500k-$1m annually by 30, and the lifestyle is much better if you have outside commitments.

You’re making a big bet on equity appreciation though. That’s how the vast majority of very highly paid folks in tech make their money. The consulting jobs pay it in cash.

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#69

Post by desert_boi »

jcheng wrote: post #57
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I mean the actual starting salaries based on employment data from universities themselves tell us there’s only a marginal difference in those who graduate between the institutions. If you look at the degrees themselves as a form of capital investment, Ivy League schools don’t translate into “paying off,” as it were.

Here’s one source that says the difference is significant, to put it mildly. Do you have a better source you can cite? https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?166027-Harvard-Unive... https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?240444-University-of... Edit: Actually the third state school I looked up is not far off! https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?236948-University-of...

Picking "Public Ivyies" is stacking the deck a bit, no? My "third tier" school has a median of about half of what Harvard does.

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?142115-Boise-State-U...

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#70

Post by formercoder »

notacoward wrote: post #6

I find two things to disagree with in this article. First is the premise that equally high compensation is offered elsewhere in each industry. I don't know about finance or consulting, but at least for FAANG it doesn't seem to be true. Second is the overlooked explanation that it's headroom - not prestige - that accounts for the difference. I'll provide an example that illustrates both points: me. When I went from Re…

I work in finance. The “Goldman discount” is well known. People will accept lower comp for that brand on their resume. Otherwise, the places you can really make the most money are at small private firms without public shareholders. There are so many cash machines out there with very little public scrutiny.
Post reply on HN