While I agree that those may not be the most interesting jobs, I am curious what you are basing your various assertions on.
>> Worth noting is that these firms go after mediocre Ivy graduates.
Is your definition of mediocre "those who would want jobs like this" and/or "those who would be bad hires in technology"?
>> What is the profile of the 25th-percentile (as opposed to 50th or 75th) Ivy Leaguer?
What leads you to believe that these firms hire the 25th percentile Ivy leaguer?
I worked in consulting for 2 years, and I have since come to believe that startups and other technology companies are more interesting and rewarding places to work. However, dismissing the people who go to work at those places as mediocre, not particularly intelligent drones seems like more of the same HN animosity towards "business types."
I certainly know some intelligent people who've gone into banking and consulting, but one of two things tends to happen. Either (1) they find the work boring and leave quickly, or (2) they're rapidly tapped, before (1) can happen, as the "protege" of someone important and get the best projects-- projects that would usually be given to associates and VPs. Usually (2) happens in the context of a family connection; it's not something that's just handed out.
>> Worth noting is that these firms go after mediocre Ivy graduates.
Is your definition of mediocre "those who would want jobs like this" and/or "those who would be bad hires in technology"?
>> What is the profile of the 25th-percentile (as opposed to 50th or 75th) Ivy Leaguer?
What leads you to believe that these firms hire the 25th percentile Ivy leaguer?
I worked in consulting for 2 years, and I have since come to believe that startups and other technology companies are more interesting and rewarding places to work. However, dismissing the people who go to work at those places as mediocre, not particularly intelligent drones seems like more of the same HN animosity towards "business types."