HPRgument Blog — April 24, 2010 9:36 pm

Why do Harvard kids head to Wall Street? Because they want to, that’s why

By Sam Barr

Ezra Klein has a balanced, sympathetic interview with an anonymous Harvard grad (history and political philosophy, my kind of guy/girl) who worked for Goldman Sachs after being recruited at Harvard. The key paragraph, the one that allows Ezra to suggest that the Ivy-Wall St. pipeline is not all about following the money, is this one:

Investment banking was never something I thought I wanted to do. But the recruiting culture at Harvard is extremely powerful. In the midst of anxiety and trying to find a job at the end of college, the recruiters are really in your face, and they make it very easy. One thing is the internship program … if that goes well, you have an offer by September of your senior year, and that’s very appealing. It makes your senior year more relaxed, you can focus on your thesis, you can drink more. You just don’t have to worry about getting a job.

Really? Extremely powerful? I’ve gotten a few emails from recruiters, and a ton more from career services people promoting their recruitment events, and I just have to say: I don’t see how you could get dragged into this “culture” if you weren’t already having, just a little bit, maybe even sub-consciously, visions of becoming a Wall Street tycoon.

I mean, really, if it was something you thought you never wanted to do, then why on Earth did you respond to the emails and go to the schmooze-fests? Let’s not pretend we don’t have a good degree of control over where we end up. If anybody in this world should be held responsible for their choices because they have just so darn many of them, it’s Harvard students. Being able to drink more in your senior year does not have to be an overwhelming consideration.

Related posts:

Obama Mad Libs
Biden and Gibbs Mad Libs
Social Studies Walkout: Video
Google Sells Out
Tags:
Author: Sam Barr '11, a government concentrator, was the Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Political Review in 2010.
  • Alex

    You quote him on reducing senior-year anxiety and being able to drink more, but interestingly you neglect his more salient point:

    “And separate from that, I think it’s about squelching anxiety in general. It checks the job box. And it’s a low-risk opportunity. It’s a two-year program with a great salary and the promise to get these skills that should be able to transfer to a variety of other areas. The idea is that once you pass the test at Goldman, you can do anything. You learn Excel, you learn valuation, you learn how to survive intense hours and a high-pressure environment. So it seems like a good way to launch your career. That’s very appealing for those of us at Harvard who were not in pre-professional majors.”

    That rings very true to me; it’s a low-risk way to jumpstart your career and gain valuable skills, it’s a well-defined path, and the recruiting process is built in. Trying to find a path in the public sector or journalism is more difficult. And going into academia isn’t always an option, unless you’re extremely passionate about your major and willing/able to make a 6-10 year commitment for a degree that will give you little financial support.

  • Sam Barr

    Fair enough. That paragraph is more sympathetic than the other one.

    I don’t find it as convincing as you do, though. The crux of his claim is, “It’s a two-year program with a great salary and the promise to get these skills that should be able to transfer to a variety of other areas.” First, notice that the “great salary” comes first, and still Ezra wants to pawn this kid off as evidence that it’s not all about following the money. Second, I doubt that Goldman Sachs really offers a unique basket of skills, one you just couldn’t get somewhere else. (I mean, really, one of the three skills you supposedly get from Goldman is Excel!) And I don’t think finance is the only career option with long hours and high pressure.

    I think it’s interesting that both you and the interviewee use this phrase “low-risk.” What does that really mean? In my view, that mostly means “I don’t have to worry about money.” It also suggests laziness, i.e. “I don’t want to find my own path, I just want to follow one that’s been laid out for me.” Look, that’s understandable (in the sense that I understand why it’s appealing), but it’s not laudable. If anybody should be taking risks and trying something new, it’s those who have been blessed with more resources and usually more talents than almost anybody else in the world.

  • Sextus_Empiricus

    Enjoyed reading your reply to Mr Alex a bit more than your brief rebuttal. Not much to add to this discussion besides the fact that I’m glad Harvard is graduating individuals like you as well: individuals who can see that money does not equal “reward” or it doesn’t add “value” and that the onus of choice is not penultimately but ultimately down to the individual.

    Good on you, Sir.

  • Sextus_Empiricus

    Mr/Ms/Mrs Alex*

  • Rocco

    first, the system for recruitment may have been somewhat different for him 10 years ago.

    second, it does seem as though the recruitment system is much stronger and more streamlined for I-banking than for anything else. This is particularly true of athletics, where there are often recruiting sessions arranged between particular teams and graduates working on Wall Street

    third, I think financial anxiety is a fair consideration for a lot of people. most of us are going to be in a lot of debt after we get out; I-banking will pay that off. you say that low-risk = lazy. most americans would not say that financial security is laziness.

    fourth, you seem to mischaracterize his point. he isn’t attempting to void himself of responsibility for his choice, or complaining about being “dragged,” as you say, into goldman sachs; there’s not even any reason to assume he considers this decision a mistake. This is much clearer in the paragraph Alex uses. (sidenote, it is generally editorially preferable to note when you add italics – he didn’t emphasize “extremely powerful” in the original interview)

    fifth, I think when he said I-banking was something he “never thought [he] wanted to do,” he meant before college. It’s literally impossible that he accepted an internship at Goldman Sachs at junior year and the thought of being an I-banker never crossed his mind

    I generally agree with you, in that people should probably think harder and more in-depth about the decision to go into I-banking. The interviewee would probably agree too. But I don’t think it’s fair to claim that some Harvard students don’t get caught in the “golden handcuffs” – I-banking or no

  • Pingback: Absolutely Not Fabulous « The Harvard Political Review

  • Jaron

    I know this post is old but I recently read Ezra’s too and wanted to comment.

    I went to Penn, which has a similar program as Harvard but is far more focused on the undergrads who attend Wharton, rather than the Arts & Sciences students, although, you can definitely still get a job at Goldman coming from that background. Sidenote: I actually disagree with the thesis that Goldman actually prefers liberals arts majors, I just think because Harvard doesn’t have a traditional undergrad business program, and they know that a business degree isn’t required, they’ve marketed very well to nonbusiness Harvard students. If you go to the other ivies (or T15 US News) schools with undergrad business programs, Goldman, et al definitely prefer those students.

    Back to my original point . . . I think what I’ve noticed most is that between the Baby Boomers and end of Gen X/Gen Y (I’m ’80 so right on the line I’ve been told), you see a lot less risk-taking amongst people in their 20s. I work in corporate law and I know a ton of partners who had no idea they wanted to be lawyers right after undergrad and did fascinating things like peacecorps, teaching, journalism, etc. Nowdays, the majority of corporate law associates went straight through to law school and had their eyes on the prize since at least their junior year of undergrad. And often the answer to the why did you go to law school question is: I didn’t like my banking summer internship and needed something to do, so I took the LSAT and did well (i.e. a way to keep the drinking party going for another 3 years and I’ll make a phat salary when it’s all done). American society has changed so much in the last 25-30 years and it’s had an unfortunate impact on the younger generation. I meet far more Ivy league grads who pursues special interest, government, teaching, engineering jobs than I do now. Because wall street (including consulting and law) salaries got so big, it became irresistibale to a lot of students (and their families who put pressure on them). Most of the engineers I went to college with ended up going back to B-school because they knew they could make more money as a hedge fund quant or as an associate at a silicon valley tech VC fund.

    I don’t have any great solution to this stratification, but it is sad and morally corrupt.

custom writing