jbagelboy wrote: hellojd wrote: t-14orbust wrote:
jingosaur wrote:Do they really care about SAT scores even for grad students? I interviewed with Bain in UG and was shocked that they wanted my SAT score and I was actually pretty pissed because it wasn't representative of my actual standardized test taking abilities.
I currently work at a consulting firm that was Vault 50 and has recently fallen out of the rankings. From my experience, I wouldn't go back to a consulting firm over a BigLaw firm unless it's MBB. I think a lot of people want consulting over Biglaw because of perceived fewer hours and more job security, but in reality, job security is about equal (my partner has been trying to get me fired for 8 months now and I'm a top performer) and it's not uncommon for people to be on projects with 80+ hour weeks and/or 5 day a week travel to the middle of nowhere. The stress and workload on average probably isn't as bad as Biglaw, but with the exception of a few firms, you'll be making significantly less and raises and bonuses are virtually nonexistent.
How about MBcg > Biglaw?
I'd second what this poster said, but emphasizing that he's not talking about MBB and probably the tier right below that (Accenture, Deloitte/Big 4, Booz, etc.). I used to be at one of those 2nd tier shops, and I can definitely vouch for the fact that there was a definite perceived dropoff between us and MBB, but also a large dropoff between our tier and all the other random consulting firms out there (there are a million, but an example of a TTT consulting firm IMO is Kurt Salomon). The dropoff is really steep and really quick, quite unlike biglaw where a dropoff exists between, say, a V10 and a V25, but not by much and even the V25 may beat the V10 on certain sectors/practice areas, and where the compensation is likely the same. To be honest, I'm surprised there's even a ranking up to 50 - as a former consultant, I don't think I can even name more than 10-15 significant shops that come to mind, which is very far from the case with law firms.
While I agree there's a dropoff in nationwide notoriety between the largest brand consulting firms like Mckinsey, Deloitte and Booz, and many of the smaller firms, the work quality and substance distinction is specious and mistakes or misrepresents the nature of the consulting practice. Major F500 client work distributes throughout a large number of high quality firms, many of which perform substantially similar work and produce similar deliverables depending on whether its more of a strategy, economic, litigation, supply chain, IT, or other emphasis. Business relationships b/t consultant and company will often carry over wherever you go. At places like Towers Watson and KPMG your experience will not be different from Bain if you're working with the same client and subject area, except that fewer people will know the name of your employer (but they'll know your client). Analysis Group is the top of its field but its a different lifestyle from the Mon - Thurs night travel management consultant positions. I would argue there's a "steep drop-off" in size and breadth of practices/offices, but certainly not clients and work, which matter a lot more if you're interested in specializing anyway.
For example, I started at a larger ("top") brand as analyst and moved into a more boutique consulting firm which represented clients in a particular industry; we represented the biggest international players in that industry, but lacked the breadth (and obviously name recognition) of somewhere like McKinsey. Still, since many of the partners had brought clients over from the big name firms, the work and travel was the same quality and scope.
By "50" are you referring to vault? Why are people on tls obsessed with websites like vault where they shouldn't even apply? Consulting can't be reduced to that type of prestige chasing shit
If what OP or anyone is interested in is being a career consultant, then none of this perceived prestige stuff really matters because the criteria is completely different from what I thought it would be (compensation is fine, and travel is to be expected).
But the purpose of consulting, in my opinion, really boils down to two things: high(er) compensation and exits. The compensation at the brand consulting firms is usually better from the beginning to any advancement stage (I don't know how your boutique was, but from what I've heard from people who've worked at boutiques, their salaries were usually lower OR slightly higher to justify the cut in prestige), and exits are unparalleled because of perceived prestige. For MBB vs. others, the difference in perceived prestige is significant. And between larger brands and smaller brands, it is also very significant. What supports this is the fact that the exits are vastly better at the name brand firms. This isn't to say that you can't get good exits out of boutiques, but a pay cut + perhaps more time spent is likely to be in the equation.
As for the actual work, operations is operations. But at brand firms, there are more opportunities to work for better clients. This is an important distinction, because while at MBB you do work in no-name-city every now and then, you really really don't want to be stuck out in the middle of nowhere for 6 months. Further, at MBB, there are more opportunities, substance-wise, to work on more challenging strategy engagements.
I agree that Vault doesn't accurately paint a picture of the consulting profession, just as Vault doesn't paint a perfect picture of the legal profession (see Dovel & Luner), but it's a decent starting point for recruitment. Similar to Vault law rankings, except there are no Williams & Connolly/Munger/Irell-type firms that are hidden in the Vault consulting rankings. MBB is a distinct tier. And this is coming from someone who isn't really a prestige whore (after all, igo2northwestern..).