Honestly, should the consulting thing confuse or worry anyone?
First, my understanding is that the term "consultant" has become so broad that it basically just means "contractor" for intellectual jobs; it covers coding, management, business strategy, and a million other things.
Second, even if we stick to a slightly more narrow definition, consulting essentially boils down to smart people going around to existing businesses and telling them how to do their jobs better (hopefully). (Presumably, these businesses don't need the smart people most of the time, which is why they don't have them as employees.) At least superficially, this seems like an appropriate use of smart people: target them at the problems where they are needed, which are dispersed across many businesses.
Now, if finance and consulting are actually sectors that aren't contributing to society (a net drain), then there's a real problem. But if so, the fact that so many smart people are going into them to make money is just the symptom, not the problem,
>Honestly, should the consulting thing confuse or worry anyone?
I think the author did a pretty good job of explaining why she is worried, and while your two points are compelling, neither really addresses that explanation. You've got people who wanted to be artists, or public servants, or writers, or filmmakers, or non-profit workers, giving up their dreams for the sake of the security offered seductively by professional recruiters. That's a trade off for them, and perhaps liable to elicit a general shrug, but it's hardly a radical position to view so many making that trade off as potentially a loss for society or, say, humanity. Maybe the Shakespeares of this world always end up being Shakespeares. But maybe every once in a while they end up in finance or consultancy. I think it's fine that they have to freedom to do that. I think it's a shame that so much of the risk is on the side of "I'm going to be the next Shakespeare."
This is so rarely the case. At my firm the percentage of people in consulting who wanted to be artists, public servants, writers, or filmmakers is less than 10%. The way you've described it makes it sound like all these Yalie beatniks are selling out for the prospect of a stable paycheck.
Many of my colleagues weren't lifelong consultants, but they were lifelong businesspeople. The ones who left went on to start tech companies, open restaurants, work in VC, work for non-profits, etc.
Well, whatever their passions were, writing powerpoint decks in order to justify internal power moves at another company, because someone wanted something done so they hired you to provide post hoc rationalization for it.. I mean, really? This is what we're doing with "the best and the brightest"? Expert MS Office users?
Again: if so, this is a problem with the consulting market, not Yale. You're not going to change anything by pleading with Yale grads to turn down lots of money.
Much more interesting is the argument that consulting, though productive, takes advantage of college student's fear of risk in order to win out over riskier options which are actually in the students best interest. (I'm skeptical.) Then, indeed, it would be beneficial to talk to these students about the problem.
The Yale undergraduates who did get in would inevitably be influenced by the environment they're in.
Second point - I know of talented people who want to get out of PE/IB and join a startup but can never do it because of their regular paychecks and current levels of wealth.
The benefits/numbing comfort of a regular (and very large) pay check are extremely hard to leave, especially for a downgrade.
On the counter-side I know plenty of IB people who founded startups because their paychecks and level of wealth made it possible to commit several years of their lives to a startup.
In this context, I think "consulting" means Management Consulting, i.e. working for McKinsey, Bain, BCG, etc. Corporate recruiting at top schools is heavily dominated by finance and management consulting firms.
First, my understanding is that the term "consultant" has become so broad that it basically just means "contractor" for intellectual jobs; it covers coding, management, business strategy, and a million other things.
Second, even if we stick to a slightly more narrow definition, consulting essentially boils down to smart people going around to existing businesses and telling them how to do their jobs better (hopefully). (Presumably, these businesses don't need the smart people most of the time, which is why they don't have them as employees.) At least superficially, this seems like an appropriate use of smart people: target them at the problems where they are needed, which are dispersed across many businesses.
Now, if finance and consulting are actually sectors that aren't contributing to society (a net drain), then there's a real problem. But if so, the fact that so many smart people are going into them to make money is just the symptom, not the problem,