@NrdsB4, lol.
I left before. Lol
ALL of the elite colleges stress that they want their students to be collaborative over being competitive. Some classes don’t even give tests. They give homework sets or projects for the students to work on as a group. That seems like a good way to go
I also do not like the rat race. It stresses me out.
I chose PhD program A over program B because program A promoted very small, intimate, and collaborative cohorts whereas B felt like we were pitted against each other despite all being fully funded.
It stresses me out just thinking about those high-powered jobs. I’d much rather live solidly middle class (real middle class, not CC middle class) and a simple life than the jobs being described here.
(And, given my career interests, I’ve clearly embarked on paths that will never let me break into that kind of money anyway… whew. 
)
In reply #626:
There are probably plenty of new graduates who find only one job, which is neither high paying nor anything that s/he or others consider noble or good.
[QUOTE=""]
Wall Street was taking on more risk. Too much risk. Leveraged 33 to 1. Assets drop more than 3 percent in price, you are wiped out. Wth? That is what they teach you at Harvard?
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, that was the line of Greenspan’s reasoning. He claimed that he did not understand why banks would take these enormous risks and ended up destroying the capitals in their stewardship.
Well, people like Mozilo did precisely that. He was just a fr*igging CEO. He collected close to $500M during the good time at Countrywide. When he destroyed “his” bank, did he have to cough up any of his compensation - he was fined less than a $68M and banned from being an officer/director of any company (and no jail time). I do not need to go to Harvard to know that the plebs are bunch of Ben Dovers.
Yes, it is rational when the risk is all someone else’s money, and the upside is a % of someone else’s money. In other words, no risk at all for the trader, except losing their job for not being aggressive enough.
So many heading to Wall Street from elite institutions must be something more than them being competitive in personality. There are other professions that are also very competitive. Aren’t some areas in tech also cut throat? From what I heard it gets brutal. So why not 30-45% of graduates head to tech?
Well, the competition goes hiding. They become passive-aggressive not less competitive, I am afraid.
@sorghum, interesting tidbit,
Hunt re 737: Absolutely agree. The reality is that more kids from the super-elites are highly competitive and driven to do their absolute best. While many are among the smartest kids there are, the Type A driven personality is the one that will thrive on a trading floor. There are many other kids that are just as smart, but don’t have that personality and drive. Some of those less driven kids can be pushed by parents to become much more driven, but many can’t be. Some become more competitive as they get older, so the Type B high schooler may become a Type A- college kid, but is not likely to handle a highly competitive environment.
It took me a long time to accept that my very smart kid was just not driven in that way and no amount of effort on my part was going to change that.
@dstark My wife is an actuary. It took her 10 years to pass that final exam, on her 8th attempt. After all she sacrificed getting to that point, she would not give up.
Her favorite exam was operations research, so I can see where your daughter is coming from.
BTW, pertinent to this discussion, she was accepted to Wharton but couldn’t afford it. She went to state school, paid for it herself, graduated in 3 years with degrees in math and computer science, and got the same job she would have gotten coming out of Wharton (actuarial student program at major insurance company).
As I think about this some more, I think the word “competitive” may not be exactly what I mean, and that “driven” may be better. What I see is not necessarily kids who feel they must prevail over others (although that is certainly part of the makeup of some of them), but kids who feel that they must do well at everything–they must have top grades, they must be heavily involved in challenging ECs, they must get really challenging internships, etc. Sometimes that involves beating out other people, and sometimes it doesn’t (grade inflation is helpful in this respect). But it seems to me that elites are selecting for this personality type these days, something that is perhaps inevitable as the demand for seats at those schools increases without a whole lot of increase in supply.
Chardo,
I like your wife’s perseverence.
I am going to keep your first paragraph in my mind… Just in case the issue comes up during the next several years. 
I like your post.
@jym626 A better answer, I think, is given by the article on post 586. Here is Robert Teitelman:
“Hsu, a physicist at the University of Oregon, then offered a further distinction between hard and soft firms, which are looking for subtly different skills. His distinction turns almost entirely on quantitative abilities. Hard firms, like hedge and venture firms and tech startups, demand sheer mathematical brainpower and will take it where they can find it. Soft firms such as investment banks, law and consulting firms that sell services, like advice, that is more “nebulous” and harder to measure, and where “prestige” matters more, embrace the elite-school brand more readily”.
I have always argued that you can be a lucky sperm and get into an elite, but you have to have the chops to understand the Gaussian copula function, let alone applying it to credit risk. That, to me, is elite.
Maybe, but most of the people with those chops are working for people who have “soft” skills, such as the ability to sell investment products to other people. Is a Classics major from Yale more likely to have those skills than a business major from a state university? That’s the question, and some firms think the answer is yes.
Hunt, competitive, driven,… all good.
I have a good friend who went to Yale. Very bright. He is the most competitive person I hang around with these days. He is a very nice guy. Very calm demeanor.
He wants to win. His demeanor threw me when I first met him. I had no idea he was so competitive. He was so outwardly relaxed. But his demeanor did not match how he lives his life.
After awhile, it just became clear to me… He hides his competitive nature.
There was this party in the community. There were many alpha dogs around. I said to a group of friends, “ABC is our most competitive friend”.
At first, the friends argued, “No way”. After a few minutes of talking, there was unanimous agreement. ABC is the most competitive.
I told ABC’s wife, “Your husband isn’t fooling me with his quiet personality. He is the most competitive person here”.
His wife smiled and said, “Yes. He is”,
I would say the second most competitive guy did not go to an IVY league school. He got in but he couldn’t afford the school. He said this hurt his career. He works in finance.
@Hunt You are right of course, but the other side of the relationship selling is exemplified by Steve Balmer as mentioned by @JoanneB at post 640. I am also willing to bet whose who approved the use of Li’s equation in finance are also the “Classics major from Yale” type.
This does not take away from the fact that a lot of what you are saying, on this thread, I agree with.
I know a founding partner of a very lucrative and well known law firm. He went to a small private school in Texas and U Texas law school, BTW. He is very very very wealthy. And incredibly nice. D spent many a night at that house, as she was friends with his daughter. This guy loves to cook dinner, flip pancakes in the morning, says his best times are going shopping with his D’s, etc. Seemingly very gentle personality. Married to a woman in the clergy, who is also very sweet, calm, and peaceful in demeanor.
Another friend who is a lawyer says he is an absolute pit bull in court and just in general in the professional environment. He said, “sometimes, it’s really ugly.” I just could hardly believe that the gentle person I knew (granted, only from a surface perspective) could ever be described that way. I guess he can compartmentalize from personal life to his very competitive profession.
I think all of you who think New York is the center of the universe could learn a lot from Stephen Smale who is one of the top mathematicians in the world. He said he did his best work on the beaches in Rio. IBs are considered by many to be worse than used car salesmen
Not in tech industry if I understand correctly. There, it’s the opposite. The invention is the king and soft skills are “servants” in moneytizing it.
Maybe those “skills” are not much of skills. Rather just the prestige and polish carry the day in that type of industry. We see that all the time in the third world countries. Skills don’t matter that much since their economy is not vibrant enough to put it to use.
It seems to me that the typical student at an elite school has in effect been pre-screened for the kinds of soft skills that tend to lead to successful careers in a lot of fields–they are typically hard workers, effective communicators, competitive, self-promoting, and smart. Why shouldn’t employers use a pre-screen like that? If it didn’t work for them, they’d stop doing it.