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

81–90 of 325 posts

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

#81

Post by jeffbee »

shostack wrote: post #79
jeffbee wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've interviewed several smart people from Palantir and naturally I did not hire them. They might as well wear a scarlet letter.

So you made a biased decision about a candidate based on where they worked rather than evaluate them on their ability to perform in the role relative to other candidates?

No, I evaluated their lack of a functioning moral framework to conclude they couldn't possibly perform a function in my organization because ethics are much more important than the ability to traverse directed graphs in pseudo-code on whiteboards.

If a candidate told me they got fired for intentionally sabotaging Palantir's production operations, that would neutralize the issue. So far haven't met that person.

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

#82

Post by Gibbon1 »

shostack wrote: post #79
jeffbee wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've interviewed several smart people from Palantir and naturally I did not hire them. They might as well wear a scarlet letter.

So you made a biased decision about a candidate based on where they worked rather than evaluate them on their ability to perform in the role relative to other candidates?

Anyone that worked at Palantir is potentially a mole.

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

#83

Post by gumby »

ackbar03 wrote: post #13
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…

In general though from what I read on hn I get the impression that it sucks to be an early employee at most startups, especially early stage. From what I've read a lot of compensation seems to be in equity and not cash, and unless it takes off like faang, you end up severely ubderpaid relative to what you could be making

> I get the impression that it sucks to be an early employee at most startups,

Depends what you want. I had a guy work for us at my first startup: he was employee #6 and once we got to about 13 or 15 he decided it was time to move on. I was surprised, but he felt the business was just too big for him. And indeed I've looked at his career over the ensuing years and he's worked for some amazing companies...always just for a year or so and always when they were very tiny. Sometimes I noticed he'd worked with the same people, so he wasn't leaving because he was a poor performer (we missed him) but simply because that's what he liked.

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

#84

Post by [deleted] »

ditonal wrote: post #62
lotsofpulp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ser…

[deleted]

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

#85

Post by lumost »

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…

Monetary success historically flowed to founders, and those off the beaten path. 20 years ago startups provided a strong path to success with friends and family often getting excited when the next hot app/website was something you worked on.

It’s difficult to replicate either the social or monetary prestige these days, as monetary rewards flow to VC and known consumer experiences are crowded.

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

#86

Post by npip99 »

smabie wrote: post #72
formercoder wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I work in HFT and my experience is like yours: the most well known firms pay the least. Right now I'm at a very small prop firm as a partner and compensation is much greater than I would have gotten at Jane St, Citadel, etc. Generally people only seek at prestigious firms like Goldman early in their career and switch over to more obscure but lucrative opportunities: prop firms, pe, hf, etc.

Wait a second, am I missing out right now? I have an opportunity at Jane Street, but I haven't been exposed to any of the other small name firms. Where do I look to find the higher paying jobs?

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

#87

Post by esoterica »

jeffbee wrote: post #81
shostack wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you made a biased decision about a candidate based on where they worked rather than evaluate them on their ability to perform in the role relative to other candidates?

No, I evaluated their lack of a functioning moral framework to conclude they couldn't possibly perform a function in my organization because ethics are much more important than the ability to traverse directed graphs in pseudo-code on whiteboards. If a candidate told me they got fired for intentionally sabotaging Palantir's production operations, that would neutralize the issue. So far haven't met that person.

You seem very confident they won’t find anything morally objectionable with your company and decide to sabotage your operations.

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

#88

Post by lotsofpulp »

formercoder wrote: post #68
shuckles wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not worth the hit to quality of life, in my opinion. It's much easier to plan trips or visit with my friends in tech than the ones in finance. Live to work vs work to live scenario.

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

#89

Post by smabie »

npip99 wrote: post #86
smabie wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in HFT and my experience is like yours: the most well known firms pay the least. Right now I'm at a very small prop firm as a partner and compensation is much greater than I would have gotten at Jane St, Citadel, etc. Generally people only seek at prestigious firms like Goldman early in their career and switch over to more obscure but lucrative opportunities: prop firms, pe, hf, etc.

Wait a second, am I missing out right now? I have an opportunity at Jane Street, but I haven't been exposed to any of the other small name firms. Where do I look to find the higher paying jobs?

If you're early in your career, then you should probably just take the Jane St opportunity. They are very well respected and it looks very good on your resume.

If you're later in your career, you should have enough contacts and know enough people to get in the door at a small firm. If you don't know their name, you'll have a hard time getting in. These kinds of places don't post job openings on indeed. You kind of have to know someone.

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

#90

Post by vikinghckr »

formercoder wrote: post #68
shuckles wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FANG equities don't require making any "bets". They're as good as cash.
Post reply on HN