It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 11:06

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Employment Reports from 2001-2003

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 1632

Kudos [?]: 213 [0], given: 0

Location: Southern California
Schools: Chicago (dinged), Tuck (November), Columbia (RD)

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2008, 15:52
I wanted to create a thread for people to post employment reports from 2001-2003 so that we can get a better idea of realistic expectations for the upcoming application year. I don't believe the #s from 2006 or 2007 will be a realistic expectation for new applicants to keep.

Below is a link to Columbia's:

If anyone has other school's employment reports from '01 - '03 feel free to post them.
_________________

Check out the new Career Forum
http://gmatclub.com/forum/133

Kudos [?]: 213 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 872

Kudos [?]: 206 [0], given: 4

Location: Sunny So Cal
Schools: CBS, Cornell, Duke, Ross, Darden
Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2008, 16:17
Good call.

At first blush, the i-bank placement jumps off the page.

~44% went into i-banking in 2001
~27% went into i-banking in 2003.

My guess is the # of spots available was reduced...In any event, the historical norm looks to be ~35% for Columbia. This has been a brutal year for banks + broker-dealers. I expect the numbers will be just as bad (as 2003), if not worse for Class of 2010 and 2011 for those trying to go into banking. Just using the trading that my company does (not an i-bank, though), S&T jobs will be reduced dramatically. The fixed income folks (in particular BSC and LEH) and hedge funds have been slaughtered, and the trading volume is microscopic, even compared to the recessionary period of 2001. The M&A and IPO markets are all but dead except for the energy and materials sectors. With that said, I'd rather be at Columbia than Wharton if I were trying to go into i-banking. The NYC advantage and the CBS presence on Wall Street cannot be overstated enough.

Kudos [?]: 206 [0], given: 4

SVP
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 1632

Kudos [?]: 213 [0], given: 0

Location: Southern California
Schools: Chicago (dinged), Tuck (November), Columbia (RD)
Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2008, 16:22
ryguy904 wrote:
Good call.

At first blush, the i-bank placement jumps off the page.

~44% went into i-banking in 2001
~27% went into i-banking in 2003.

My guess is the # of spots available was reduced...In any event, the historical norm looks to be ~35% for Columbia. This has been a brutal year for banks + broker-dealers. I expect the numbers will be just as bad (as 2003), if not worse for Class of 2010 and 2011 for those trying to go into banking. Just using the trading that my company does (not an i-bank, though), S&T jobs will be reduced dramatically. The fixed income folks (in particular BSC and LEH) and hedge funds have been slaughtered, and the trading volume is microscopic, even compared to the recessionary period of 2001. The M&A and IPO markets are all but dead except for the energy and materials sectors. With that said, I'd rather be at Columbia than Wharton if I were trying to go into i-banking. The NYC advantage and the CBS presence on Wall Street cannot be overstated enough.

I think the % to look closer at is the number that goes into the "Corporate Finance/M&A" function, rather than the I-Banking industry in general.
_________________

Check out the new Career Forum
http://gmatclub.com/forum/133

Kudos [?]: 213 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 624

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2008, 16:44
Wow, I just saw an interesting tid bit in the 2002 report that schools don't usually disclose. Not exactly the topic but - Columbia said 48% of its applicants were international in 2002. Considering the fact that international applications have been growing faster than domestic recently, I wonder what the percentage of international applicants will be at the top schools for 2009. I didn't realize these schools might have 50+% international applicants and then enroll a class that's 35-40% international. I guess there is a lower acceptance rate for international students than americans. interesting.

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 872

Kudos [?]: 206 [0], given: 4

Location: Sunny So Cal
Schools: CBS, Cornell, Duke, Ross, Darden
Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2008, 17:16
terp06 wrote:

I think the % to look closer at is the number that goes into the "Corporate Finance/M&A" function, rather than the I-Banking industry in general.

I disagree. As far as CBS stats, yes more people go into the m&a types of roles, but still ~1/3 of people that went into i-banking go the S&T route. Plus, they are very different career paths and job duties, so it's not like somebody would likely say, I'll just go the M&A route instead. More likely they will choose a different career route (MC, General management, etc.). With S&T jobs making up about 10% of the post grad jobs at CBS, that's almost 70 jobs. Let's assume that S&T jobs get cut back 25% (this is "optimistic" since trading volumes are down up MUCH more than this). That would leave 17 potential Columbia folks looking for jobs. Add in the same % cuts at Chi/H/S/Wharton/Kellogg, etc., and you will have a much more competitive i-banking class. Additionally, the alternative jobs that these people end up taking will lead to more competition in other areas (MC, etc.)

There is no doubt that S&T has been significantly impacted. Simply look at the fixed income trading revenues at any of the banks. Heck, look at the trading revenues in general. The housing market has crushed exotics such as CDO's, CLO's, CMO's, and even basic fixed income vehicles (MBS). I'm not sure if you follow the stats, but the volumes are barely existent for MBS and literally none of the exotics are even trading. Seriously, I read a Bloomberg article about a month ago talking about how a structured RMBS deal was finally closed in Australia this year. They were talking about Australia because no deals been closed in the US all year! Additionally, you need to look at hedge funds performance, because they are huge customers of the broker-dealer business. Poor performance and redemptions are shutting down funds and curtailing some strategies. Don't believe me? http://hf-implode.com/

As far as the m&a jobs, I think it's pretty straightforward what's going on.

Kudos [?]: 206 [0], given: 4

SVP
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 1632

Kudos [?]: 213 [0], given: 0

Location: Southern California
Schools: Chicago (dinged), Tuck (November), Columbia (RD)
Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2008, 18:39
ryguy904 wrote:
terp06 wrote:

I think the % to look closer at is the number that goes into the "Corporate Finance/M&A" function, rather than the I-Banking industry in general.

I disagree. As far as CBS stats, yes more people go into the m&a types of roles, but still ~1/3 of people that went into i-banking go the S&T route. Plus, they are very different career paths and job duties, so it's not like somebody would likely say, I'll just go the M&A route instead. More likely they will choose a different career route (MC, General management, etc.). With S&T jobs making up about 10% of the post grad jobs at CBS, that's almost 70 jobs. Let's assume that S&T jobs get cut back 25% (this is "optimistic" since trading volumes are down up MUCH more than this). That would leave 17 potential Columbia folks looking for jobs. Add in the same % cuts at Chi/H/S/Wharton/Kellogg, etc., and you will have a much more competitive i-banking class. Additionally, the alternative jobs that these people end up taking will lead to more competition in other areas (MC, etc.)

There is no doubt that S&T has been significantly impacted. Simply look at the fixed income trading revenues at any of the banks. Heck, look at the trading revenues in general. The housing market has crushed exotics such as CDO's, CLO's, CMO's, and even basic fixed income vehicles (MBS). I'm not sure if you follow the stats, but the volumes are barely existent for MBS and literally none of the exotics are even trading. Seriously, I read a Bloomberg article about a month ago talking about how a structured RMBS deal was finally closed in Australia this year. They were talking about Australia because no deals been closed in the US all year! Additionally, you need to look at hedge funds performance, because they are huge customers of the broker-dealer business. Poor performance and redemptions are shutting down funds and curtailing some strategies. Don't believe me? http://hf-implode.com/

As far as the m&a jobs, I think it's pretty straightforward what's going on.

I noticed that you mentioned in your last post that M&A jobs will be tough to come by for the classes of 2010 and 2011. How did you come to this conclusion?

In the last recession, the Dow Jones Industrial Average started taking a slide around March of 2002, bottomed out at around September of 2002, and started recovering beginning in March of 2003. Jobs were difficult to come by for the classes of 2002 and 2003, but the class of 2004 seemed to show a decent recovery and the class of 2005 a more significant recovery. Assuming that this downturn began in January/February of 2008, bottoms out this Fall, and starts on the road to recovery in March of 2009, wouldn't we expect the Class of 2010 to show a decent recovery (like the class of 2004), and the Class of 2011 to be back in full swing (like the class of 2005)?

Also M&A placements seemed to stay relatively stable throughout 2002-2005. Approximately 16-19% of the class went into Corp Fin/M&A. These are huge numbers - no matter how you dice it, by the way. 16% of a class of 711 is 114 people becoming M&A bankers in a recession year. I would venture to guess that at least 10% of them were career switchers (of varying degrees).

Lastly, as far as M&A, I would think the timing of the class of 2003 or 2004 would have been impeccable. If you graduated in 2006, for example, you would barely be a 2nd year associate right now who has seen 1 good bonus year. If you graduated in 2003, you would be a 2nd year VP and you would have seen 4 good bonus years at higher ranks.
_________________

Check out the new Career Forum
http://gmatclub.com/forum/133

Kudos [?]: 213 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4318

Kudos [?]: 762 [0], given: 5

Location: Back in Chicago, IL
Schools: Kellogg Alum: Class of 2010
Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2008, 19:02
Kellogg has back to 1997 on their site.

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/career_employer/employment/2007/index.htm
_________________

Kellogg Class of 2010...still active and willing to help. However, I do not do profile reviews, don't offer predictions on chances and am far to busy to review essays, so save the energy of writing me a PM seeking help for these. If I don't respond to a PM that is not one of the previously mentioned trash can destined messages, please don't take it personally I get so many messages I have a hard to responding to most. The more interesting, compelling, or humorous you message the more likely I am to respond.
GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 762 [0], given: 5

SVP
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 2302

Kudos [?]: 481 [0], given: 0

Schools: Darden
Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2008, 22:05
terp06 wrote:
ryguy904 wrote:
terp06 wrote:

I think the % to look closer at is the number that goes into the "Corporate Finance/M&A" function, rather than the I-Banking industry in general.

I disagree. As far as CBS stats, yes more people go into the m&a types of roles, but still ~1/3 of people that went into i-banking go the S&T route. Plus, they are very different career paths and job duties, so it's not like somebody would likely say, I'll just go the M&A route instead. More likely they will choose a different career route (MC, General management, etc.). With S&T jobs making up about 10% of the post grad jobs at CBS, that's almost 70 jobs. Let's assume that S&T jobs get cut back 25% (this is "optimistic" since trading volumes are down up MUCH more than this). That would leave 17 potential Columbia folks looking for jobs. Add in the same % cuts at Chi/H/S/Wharton/Kellogg, etc., and you will have a much more competitive i-banking class. Additionally, the alternative jobs that these people end up taking will lead to more competition in other areas (MC, etc.)

There is no doubt that S&T has been significantly impacted. Simply look at the fixed income trading revenues at any of the banks. Heck, look at the trading revenues in general. The housing market has crushed exotics such as CDO's, CLO's, CMO's, and even basic fixed income vehicles (MBS). I'm not sure if you follow the stats, but the volumes are barely existent for MBS and literally none of the exotics are even trading. Seriously, I read a Bloomberg article about a month ago talking about how a structured RMBS deal was finally closed in Australia this year. They were talking about Australia because no deals been closed in the US all year! Additionally, you need to look at hedge funds performance, because they are huge customers of the broker-dealer business. Poor performance and redemptions are shutting down funds and curtailing some strategies. Don't believe me? http://hf-implode.com/

As far as the m&a jobs, I think it's pretty straightforward what's going on.

I noticed that you mentioned in your last post that M&A jobs will be tough to come by for the classes of 2010 and 2011. How did you come to this conclusion?

In the last recession, the Dow Jones Industrial Average started taking a slide around March of 2002, bottomed out at around September of 2002, and started recovering beginning in March of 2003. Jobs were difficult to come by for the classes of 2002 and 2003, but the class of 2004 seemed to show a decent recovery and the class of 2005 a more significant recovery. Assuming that this downturn began in January/February of 2008, bottoms out this Fall, and starts on the road to recovery in March of 2009, wouldn't we expect the Class of 2010 to show a decent recovery (like the class of 2004), and the Class of 2011 to be back in full swing (like the class of 2005)?

Also M&A placements seemed to stay relatively stable throughout 2002-2005. Approximately 16-19% of the class went into Corp Fin/M&A. These are huge numbers - no matter how you dice it, by the way. 16% of a class of 711 is 114 people becoming M&A bankers in a recession year. I would venture to guess that at least 10% of them were career switchers (of varying degrees).

Lastly, as far as M&A, I would think the timing of the class of 2003 or 2004 would have been impeccable. If you graduated in 2006, for example, you would barely be a 2nd year associate right now who has seen 1 good bonus year. If you graduated in 2003, you would be a 2nd year VP and you would have seen 4 good bonus years at higher ranks.

Last recession was totally different that the current market dislocation. Last time, tech stocks got hammered and basically gave back gains that were not a part of the economy before the boom. For example, what was the market value of Yahoo, Ebay & Amazon before the tech boom? Even after they gave back a huge chunk of their run-up, they were still a bigger part of the economy than they were before the boom (let's just say essentially nothing). Even the internet firms that disappeared altogether didn't have that much of an impact because it was all new and recent growth.

With the current market dislocation, financials are taking the worst beating. These were real companies with real earnings that have lost 50, 70, 80% of their market value. These were Fortune 500 (including Fortune 50s like Citi, Bofa, ML, Lehman, MS) that have lost 50% or more of their value). I believe its a much different phenomenon than the tech bubble, where essentially companies that never existed before came and then then vanished, leaving behind a few giants. And we can argue all day about whether technology or finance is more important to a growing economy (both are critical), but I know for a fact that many companies are able to put of technology expenditures when things are bad; but when market dislocation impacts finance as it has, everything ranging from the individual consumer borrowing money to the biggest corporation will grind to a halt. Thinking about buying getting a home loan? You better have pretty near perfect credit and an impeccable balance sheet. Want to syndicate 10 billion dollars of loans on your books? Sorry, even people that want to buy can't get the money.

Another huge difference between today and 2003-2005 is that the tech crash had something to fall back on - the rise of mortgage securities (already on the rise for years, but really taking off) and other asset backed securities. Again, this is a difference between a tech crash and a financial system crash. Last time around, even as the stock market tanked, money was put to work in the form of mortgage lending & securitizations. One might argue whether that all led to the current crisis, but in many respects, banking was booming during that period. This time around, it's hard to see which sector will help keep the economy afloat - even energy and commodities are no picnic because of how they impact individuals and businesses.

Which leads us to the final an most obvious difference - this time the banks are taking the brunt of the blow. Does a bank have to lay people off or reduce hiring if their client tech companies go belly up? To an extent, but, as mentioned above, banks had other businesses where they could deploy their people. Now fast-forward and ask a new question; does a bank have to lay people off or reduce hiring if it's own solvency is at stake? Well, that's a much more pointed question. Last time around, it probably sucked a lot if you were looking for a job as a web developer; this time, the suckiness is aimed squarely at the banks. Tough times, especially if market conditions persist.

Kudos [?]: 481 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 624

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2008, 23:18
pelihu wrote:
terp06 wrote:
ryguy904 wrote:

I disagree. As far as CBS stats, yes more people go into the m&a types of roles, but still ~1/3 of people that went into i-banking go the S&T route. Plus, they are very different career paths and job duties, so it's not like somebody would likely say, I'll just go the M&A route instead. More likely they will choose a different career route (MC, General management, etc.). With S&T jobs making up about 10% of the post grad jobs at CBS, that's almost 70 jobs. Let's assume that S&T jobs get cut back 25% (this is "optimistic" since trading volumes are down up MUCH more than this). That would leave 17 potential Columbia folks looking for jobs. Add in the same % cuts at Chi/H/S/Wharton/Kellogg, etc., and you will have a much more competitive i-banking class. Additionally, the alternative jobs that these people end up taking will lead to more competition in other areas (MC, etc.)

There is no doubt that S&T has been significantly impacted. Simply look at the fixed income trading revenues at any of the banks. Heck, look at the trading revenues in general. The housing market has crushed exotics such as CDO's, CLO's, CMO's, and even basic fixed income vehicles (MBS). I'm not sure if you follow the stats, but the volumes are barely existent for MBS and literally none of the exotics are even trading. Seriously, I read a Bloomberg article about a month ago talking about how a structured RMBS deal was finally closed in Australia this year. They were talking about Australia because no deals been closed in the US all year! Additionally, you need to look at hedge funds performance, because they are huge customers of the broker-dealer business. Poor performance and redemptions are shutting down funds and curtailing some strategies. Don't believe me? http://hf-implode.com/

As far as the m&a jobs, I think it's pretty straightforward what's going on.

I noticed that you mentioned in your last post that M&A jobs will be tough to come by for the classes of 2010 and 2011. How did you come to this conclusion?

In the last recession, the Dow Jones Industrial Average started taking a slide around March of 2002, bottomed out at around September of 2002, and started recovering beginning in March of 2003. Jobs were difficult to come by for the classes of 2002 and 2003, but the class of 2004 seemed to show a decent recovery and the class of 2005 a more significant recovery. Assuming that this downturn began in January/February of 2008, bottoms out this Fall, and starts on the road to recovery in March of 2009, wouldn't we expect the Class of 2010 to show a decent recovery (like the class of 2004), and the Class of 2011 to be back in full swing (like the class of 2005)?

Also M&A placements seemed to stay relatively stable throughout 2002-2005. Approximately 16-19% of the class went into Corp Fin/M&A. These are huge numbers - no matter how you dice it, by the way. 16% of a class of 711 is 114 people becoming M&A bankers in a recession year. I would venture to guess that at least 10% of them were career switchers (of varying degrees).

Lastly, as far as M&A, I would think the timing of the class of 2003 or 2004 would have been impeccable. If you graduated in 2006, for example, you would barely be a 2nd year associate right now who has seen 1 good bonus year. If you graduated in 2003, you would be a 2nd year VP and you would have seen 4 good bonus years at higher ranks.

Last recession was totally different that the current market dislocation. Last time, tech stocks got hammered and basically gave back gains that were not a part of the economy before the boom. For example, what was the market value of Yahoo, Ebay & Amazon before the tech boom? Even after they gave back a huge chunk of their run-up, they were still a bigger part of the economy than they were before the boom (let's just say essentially nothing). Even the internet firms that disappeared altogether didn't have that much of an impact because it was all new and recent growth.

With the current market dislocation, financials are taking the worst beating. These were real companies with real earnings that have lost 50, 70, 80% of their market value. These were Fortune 500 (including Fortune 50s like Citi, Bofa, ML, Lehman, MS) that have lost 50% or more of their value). I believe its a much different phenomenon than the tech bubble, where essentially companies that never existed before came and then then vanished, leaving behind a few giants. And we can argue all day about whether technology or finance is more important to a growing economy (both are critical), but I know for a fact that many companies are able to put of technology expenditures when things are bad; but when market dislocation impacts finance as it has, everything ranging from the individual consumer borrowing money to the biggest corporation will grind to a halt. Thinking about buying getting a home loan? You better have pretty near perfect credit and an impeccable balance sheet. Want to syndicate 10 billion dollars of loans on your books? Sorry, even people that want to buy can't get the money.

Another huge difference between today and 2003-2005 is that the tech crash had something to fall back on - the rise of mortgage securities (already on the rise for years, but really taking off) and other asset backed securities. Again, this is a difference between a tech crash and a financial system crash. Last time around, even as the stock market tanked, money was put to work in the form of mortgage lending & securitizations. One might argue whether that all led to the current crisis, but in many respects, banking was booming during that period. This time around, it's hard to see which sector will help keep the economy afloat - even energy and commodities are no picnic because of how they impact individuals and businesses.

Which leads us to the final an most obvious difference - this time the banks are taking the brunt of the blow. Does a bank have to lay people off or reduce hiring if their client tech companies go belly up? To an extent, but, as mentioned above, banks had other businesses where they could deploy their people. Now fast-forward and ask a new question; does a bank have to lay people off or reduce hiring if it's own solvency is at stake? Well, that's a much more pointed question. Last time around, it probably sucked a lot if you were looking for a job as a web developer; this time, the suckiness is aimed squarely at the banks. Tough times, especially if market conditions persist.

That is a really insightful analysis. Sadly, I think you are probably right. Kinda scary for us finance folks.

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 221

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

Schools: The School that shall not be named
Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2008, 06:52
I am wondering how consulting companies would do in market like this.
There is not much information out there about how these companies are doing.
I was thinking that the consulting industry would actually gain traction as the economy goes down south since the big companies in trouble will most likely hire the consulting companies for analysis and recommendations. However, if the bleeding doesn't stop, not many companies will have the resources to hire a team of consultants to help with a business problem.

Can anyone comment on this? Much appreciated.
_________________

24 wrote:
Your East Coast bias is worse than ESPN.

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 347

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 1

Location: Evanston, IL
Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2008, 07:12
fatb wrote:
I am wondering how consulting companies would do in market like this.
There is not much information out there about how these companies are doing.
I was thinking that the consulting industry would actually gain traction as the economy goes down south since the big companies in trouble will most likely hire the consulting companies for analysis and recommendations. However, if the bleeding doesn't stop, not many companies will have the resources to hire a team of consultants to help with a business problem.

Can anyone comment on this? Much appreciated.

Good question - typically it varies by industry, company, and type of consulting firm. Tech, supply chain, and strategy consulancies often do well in down turns for the following reasons:

1) implementing technology to cut costs/head count
2) cutting headcount and hiring firms to fill gaps with contractors (usually with the mandate to do more with less people)
3) identifying strategy to navigate a down turn or identifying revenue saving opportunities
4) identifying any and all cost cutting opps throughout the company

That being said, some companies / industries are more loyal to their employees and look to trim project fat - often to the disbenefit of consultancies.

All and all, consulting firms are often less affected by downturns than others.

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 1

Current Student
Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 283

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 3

Location: Milan
Schools: Wharton, LBS, UChicago, Kellogg MMM (Donald Jacobs Scholarship), Stanford, HBS
Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2008, 07:16
fatb,

in my experience as a MC, I would say that the two effects you describe roughly offset each other if there is a slowdown. In case of straght recession, the latter will win, with a downturn for consulting companies too.

As of now, consulting companies are faring well (at least outside the US), not so in 2000-2002.

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 3

Intern
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2008, 07:44
yeah, but the 2000-2002 consulting firm bust had less to do with the recession and a whole lot more to do with Arthur Andersen/Enron/compliance issues. Bain and BCG were fine, I think, while McKinsey might have had some trouble (but not a whole lot). The real losers there were the big 4 accounting firms that sold off their businesses (except for Deloitte, which has done the best of the accounting firm consultancies).

As of now, consulting companies are faring well (at least outside the US), not so in 2000-2002.

_________________

As a bathtub lined with white porcelain,
When the hot water gives out or goes tepid,
So is the slow cooling of our chivalrous passion,
O my much praised but-not-altogether-satisfactory lady.

-Ezra Pound

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 221

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

Schools: The School that shall not be named
Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2008, 07:55
Thanks very much for the quick replies.

I hope the consulting industry can weather the storm this time around, since I'd like to get into that after bschool.

BTW, I am aiming at strategy consulting with a focus on high-tech industry. Hopefully it will work out fine... since tech has been a tough business to be in so far....

Anyways, thanks everyone for the help, really appreciated.
_________________

24 wrote:
Your East Coast bias is worse than ESPN.

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1867

Kudos [?]: 615 [0], given: 32

Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks
Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2008, 08:05
It will be interesting to see how things play out next winter/spring as the 2009 Grads start getting jobs. The housing / credit thing doesn't surprise me all that much. In 2005, while starting my 3rd year of law school (part-time, I went 4 years while working full-time) my wife and I bought a house. We were approved for a mortage that was 3.5x our annual income. Our monthly payments would have been about a third (33%) of our monthly income. This is just crazy. I remember reading somewhere that you should keep your monthly housing payment (rent or mortgage) at about 20-25% of your monthly income.

No wonder so many people are defaulting on their loans. They didn't have any better sense than to take those loans and the lenders were lining up to hand out the money.
_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a\$\$.

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 615 [0], given: 32

SVP
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 1632

Kudos [?]: 213 [1], given: 0

Location: Southern California
Schools: Chicago (dinged), Tuck (November), Columbia (RD)
Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2008, 21:12
1
KUDOS
Very interesting:

http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/oyer/wp/mba.pdf
_________________

Check out the new Career Forum
http://gmatclub.com/forum/133

Kudos [?]: 213 [1], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1867

Kudos [?]: 615 [0], given: 32

Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks
Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2008, 06:16
Great paper terp06, thanks for posting it.
_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a\$\$.

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 615 [0], given: 32

Re: Employment Reports from 2001-2003   [#permalink] 17 Jul 2008, 06:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Employment Reports from 2001-2003

Moderators: OasisGC, aeropower, bb10

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.