I just finished your book a few days ago! Thanks for a great read.
You had made the point early in the book that in many ways these investment jobs are very risk-averse for young college grads because of the early hiring schedule. I was particularly interested by your insight that Teach for America really got a foot-hold in major universities when they moved up their timeline to match the early recruitment schedule of the banks.
I'm in law school right now and the similarities are striking - law firms recruit on an incredibly early timeline, often before students' 2L years whereas public interest jobs may not hire until late in the 3L year or after students have taken the bar. Risk averse lawyers want to have a job locked down so default to law firms. The risk adversity is compounded by the pressure of student loans.
Your anecdote about Teach for America strikes me as a really crucial insight about how to get millennials into the workplace after college or graduate school. Maybe we should be thinking about moving up all sorts of hiring timelines, and reproducing the 1-2 year "up or out" models in lots of industries. This would allow there to be designated spots that could let even non-profit industries hire early. Besides Teach for America were you seeing any other industries / groups try this early-recruitment model on college campuses? Do you think it would be sustainable?
My other question is whether you saw student loan debt playing a role for any of the young financiers you followed. Was it part of their calculus in taking the job? Was it part of their calculus in staying? Do you think that many young grads who go into banking have high debt loads, or did most have supportive families / substantial financial aid packages?
yeahiamayuppie2 karma
Hey Kevin --
I just finished your book a few days ago! Thanks for a great read.
You had made the point early in the book that in many ways these investment jobs are very risk-averse for young college grads because of the early hiring schedule. I was particularly interested by your insight that Teach for America really got a foot-hold in major universities when they moved up their timeline to match the early recruitment schedule of the banks.
I'm in law school right now and the similarities are striking - law firms recruit on an incredibly early timeline, often before students' 2L years whereas public interest jobs may not hire until late in the 3L year or after students have taken the bar. Risk averse lawyers want to have a job locked down so default to law firms. The risk adversity is compounded by the pressure of student loans.
Your anecdote about Teach for America strikes me as a really crucial insight about how to get millennials into the workplace after college or graduate school. Maybe we should be thinking about moving up all sorts of hiring timelines, and reproducing the 1-2 year "up or out" models in lots of industries. This would allow there to be designated spots that could let even non-profit industries hire early. Besides Teach for America were you seeing any other industries / groups try this early-recruitment model on college campuses? Do you think it would be sustainable?
My other question is whether you saw student loan debt playing a role for any of the young financiers you followed. Was it part of their calculus in taking the job? Was it part of their calculus in staying? Do you think that many young grads who go into banking have high debt loads, or did most have supportive families / substantial financial aid packages?
Again, thanks!
View HistoryShare Link