Ivy-league grads go into finance because it's an industry that really values their particular pedigree, and is willing to pay for it. Engineering, on the other hand, really doesn't. Engineering companies aren't paying $200k bonuses to kids just a few years out of an Ivy-league school. Indeed, it's pretty hard to set yourself apart, as an engineer, in a way that allows you to earn even twice as much as another engineer of a comparable level of experience.
Thus, the complaint that Ivy-league grads flock to banks is confused. If the banks are correct that Ivy-league grads are the best and the brightest, to the point where it's justifiable to almost not recruit at all outside a small set of "target schools," then the young kids are quite justified in going into an industry that appreciates their qualifications in a way science and engineering don't. On the other hand, if the banks are wrong about ivy-league grads being so much better than everyone else, then nothing much is lost that they go into banking!
> Ivy-league grads go into finance because it's an industry that really values their particular pedigree, and is willing to pay for it.
OTHER industries value the Ivy-league grads just as much. It's just that the budget doesn't allow paying at the rate to compete with Wall Street. That's the problem.
Google and Facebook generate more than $1 million of revenue per employee, quite comparable to Goldman and substantially above Morgan Stanley. The money is there, at least in tech, just more of it goes to shareholders and less to compensating employees.
Why do banks pay out so much more of their revenues out in compensation? Because investment banks are service businesses and not product businesses. Their product is their professionals, and they create brand by composing entry level classes mostly with Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Wharton, and Columbia graduates. They place tremendous weight on this criterion. Other industries, say tech companies, are much more willing to hire from the top public schools, people with foreign degrees, or even people with no degree.
Top Google engineers can make millions in stock grants. Even if you're not the best of the best, get promoted a couple times and you get a very respectable salary and stock grants that (in this market) add up very quickly. I know at least a couple mid/late-20s engineers that are like "Yeah, I'll stick it out for another 5-10 years and then move to Portland or Seattle and retire."
I hear stories of people in google never getting a promotion in 7 years as a software engineer. Or getting frustrated with promotions because everyone is overqualified for their position with PhDs and so on for positions such as a sales manager and so on. How does one become a top google engineer in their mid/late 20?
It happens. I think the longest I knew was someone who was there 11 years without being promoted. I also know folks who are promoted reliably every 2 years, all the way up from SWE 3 to Distinguished Engineer. My personal story was in the middle...I was promoted while at Google, but I didn't particularly want to climb the corporate ladder in a big company.
As for tactics - they aren't actually all that different from what you'd need to manage a successful startup. Get yourself put on a big, important project, and execute successfully on it. How do you get yourself on a big important project? Make yourself an expert within a department in one area, so that when that project is looking for people, they really need to have you. For me that area was Javascript, although I also picked up a lot about all aspects of the search stack from working on a bunch of projects (this is the "success begets success" phenomena: if you're an expert in one area, you can leverage that to get your pick of projects, which you can use to become an expert in more areas). It also helps to have a good relationship with your manager, and to pick a manager who is "plugged in" to Google's priorities and aware of the top priorities and opportunities around.
Thus, the complaint that Ivy-league grads flock to banks is confused. If the banks are correct that Ivy-league grads are the best and the brightest, to the point where it's justifiable to almost not recruit at all outside a small set of "target schools," then the young kids are quite justified in going into an industry that appreciates their qualifications in a way science and engineering don't. On the other hand, if the banks are wrong about ivy-league grads being so much better than everyone else, then nothing much is lost that they go into banking!