Six-Figure Sellouts?

Three very different perspectives on post-graduate careers in finance.

By the staff of the Princeton Progressive Nation
Thursday January 26, 2006

Philosophy or finance? The great freshman struggle for campus intellectual life

At the beginning of my first semester at Princeton, all 1,220 members of my “Great” Class of 2009 filed into McCarter Theater wondering about our futures. We were there to be welcomed by Dean Nancy Malkiel. I was curious to see how Dean Malkiel would set the tone for our four years at Princeton. In high school, the goal was clear enough – college – and now that I was actually there, I listened intently to the Dean’s advice on exploring new intellectual interests, taking risks in course selection, and not focusing too early on a career path.

Later that night, in typical freshman fashion, I shared my expectations of intellectual epiphanies with some upperclassmen. They scoffed and condescended to let me in on a “little secret.”

“Cindy,” they whispered, “Princeton ’s all about the connections.” No kidding. People here care about their futures and earning potential, but in my first few weeks, I’ve noticed that while the administration hails Princeton as a place of intellectual freedom and development, Princeton students seem to value the career opportunities afforded by attending the University even more. As Prof. Anthony Appiah said at the first class assembly, more students need to realize that we have the opportunity to take untrodden paths.

This isn’t to say that Princeton students don’t care about anything besides becoming millionaires. There is no doubt that Princeton students are passionate, compassionate, and for the most part, wish for good in the world. The turnout for clubs such as Princeton Model United Nations and the crowd that Elie Wiesel drew when he visited campus demonstrate that Princeton students are engaged with world issues. The vastness of the Student Volunteers Council and the community service projects sponsored by the sororities show that students clearly exhibit a social consciousness. Still, at the Activities Fair, students behind the booths tried to attract wandering freshmen like me by describing their activities as “fun” or “good-looking on your resume.” I, too, was drawn by the International Relations Council’s promises of a free trip to DC and the Princeton Press Club’s connections.

Moreover, there can be a marked difference between the activities students take on as undergraduates and what they end up choosing to do for a career. Any September issue of the Daily Princetonian will show that financial firms from McKinsey to the Princeton University Investment Company recruit actively on campus. This can be partly attributed to the greater interest Princeton students, as compared to students from other schools, show toward such careers. Perhaps Princeton students are easily tricked by the constant wining and dining provided by such firms, but it’s more likely that they know that these kinds of jobs will be the key to money and influence in the future. Certainly, Princeton students who go into finance won’t only care about the wealth of the companies they work for. There are opportunities for business leaders to create responsible, accountable companies and create change.

The data indicates that one in ten students from my class of 2009 at Princeton will go into careers in investment banking or consulting. And there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. But I hope that at minimum, a great deal more will be people who have heeded Dean Malkiel and gotten plenty of philosophy, English, and religion under their belts.

-Cindy Hong ‘09

Being progressive means moving up

It’s popular to disparage the fact that many Princeton students take jobs with investment banks post-graduation. Yet, those who hope that a student’s range of post-graduation employment options reflect his or her talent, not connections or background, should celebrate this decision. Perhaps they should even make special efforts to encourage interested and qualified lower-income students to take such positions.

Investment banking is the best way a Princeton undergraduate can become an upwardly mobile economic actor in America. A student able to afford Princeton only with the help of significant need-based financial aid “enters society” by taking a job at a Wall Street firm. While learning the requisite social skills, he quickly vaults himself into the highest income echelon. He can live a much more comfortable life than had he taken as his job something traditionally considered “socially progressive.” Even though a student who took a “public service job” may not need to pay off any loans (thanks to Princeton ’s financial aid policy), he is less economically and socially mobile than the student who went to Wall Street. He may not even be “better off” than his parents.

Talent, often meaning quantitative ability, is the most important factor in hiring and promotion decisions in investment banking firms. After all, firms wish to reward and retain the best performers. And there is no reason to assume that after four years, children of upper-income families will be better at charting or model-building than those from lower-income ones. Because family income has no bearing on the distribution of innate mathematical ability in a Princeton graduating class, it is ridiculous to believe that investment banking replicates existing family income disparities among graduating seniors. Indeed, i-banking uniquely has the potential to eliminate them.

Princetonians who presume to be socially progressive say that their Wall Street-bound classmates are “selling out” or becoming “tools of the Man. ” In fact, by gainsaying those who head for finance, these “liberals” are betraying the very foundation of progressive politics: the premise that one’s background should not be a barrier to economic success.

-Asheesh Siddique ‘07, Eric Meng ‘07

Stop following the herd

While investment banks and consulting firms have doubtlessly vaulted students from poor backgrounds up the socioeconomic ladder, such an outcome is neither the steady rule nor should it be the standard to which these companies must be held. Although these jobs may offer opportunity to students from lower-income communities, there is certainly no evidence that the majority, or even a healthy minority, of students entering this field come from those backgrounds. In the broader picture, instead of creating opportunity, many of these firms merely perpetuate the status quo.

The problem is not i-banking or consulting per se, but the pervasiveness of an atmosphere that promotes money, connections, and prestige as the only reasonable measures of success. This is exacerbated by the dogged recruitment tactics of firms, the type-A personalities of students, and our Career Services Office’s lack of creativity, which places limits on the job options of graduates.

Our real issue with Princeton’s obsession with finance is this: students shirk jobs that would potentially be more socially valuable and better suited to their talents under pressure to follow the herd to Wall Street. When people who would be great leaders of public interest groups, fantastic researchers, engineers or architects choose to be consultants, not only do these individuals lose out on more rewarding job experiences, but they create a situation in which our larger economy operates inefficiently. If the most brilliant and talented college students choose finance over other professions which are just as intellectually demanding but pay a little bit less, the overall quality of those working in non-finance professions will suffer.

Moreover, while a high-paying corporate career might raise the living standard of an individual graduate, jobs in the public interest hold the potential to improve the lives of a much greater number of disadvantaged people. Rather than advising a company to cut its payroll, Princeton graduates could be fighting for improvements in the condition of America’s poor and jobless. Which option sounds more progressive?

Lastly, while there is no doubt that banks and consulting firms are on the whole fair in their hiring process, the argument that they cast a blind eye to background and connections is wrong. Why is it that the top firms only bother to recruit at Ivies in the first place? Wall Street may be more ethnically diverse these days, but it remains just as socially insular a club as ever. But firms should not necessarily be forced to serve as socioeconomic engines of change. The onus instead lies on students and the University to broaden graduates’ post-college horizons.

-Mike Brown ‘06, Robby Braun ‘07

Illustration: Matt Bors