| Topic Name: |
Prestige |
| Message Name: |
Why not respond, part 2 |
| Date Posted: |
03/20/2001 |
| In Reply To: |
I'm not the guy who suggested we all ignore that original post, but I have seen that post all over Vault -- where people ARE pretty much ignoring it.
However, I would like to respond to YOUR post.
"Why won't you respond to some of his "flawed logic"
Because then we'd have to cut and paste our response a half-dozen times all over this board, just like that original guy did.
"I think the poster's hypothesis is worth discussing"
Yes, the topic is worth discussing, but only amongst rational people, not with this guy who is clearly irrational, very emotional, makes up facts as he goes along, and even the facts he makes up often don't support his argument.
"Revenues per Consultant is often an effect of prestige not necessarily a cause of it."
I have no argument with that. The original poster said "Instead of size, a better indicator of prestige is revenue generated per consultant." However, I don't recall anyone making the argument that size = prestige in the first place, so who is he arguing with?
"Percentage of applicants accepted and employee turnover might be a good indicator of prestige as well. For example, McKinsey typically receives over 100,000 applicants every year and sends out a mere 1,000 offers."
That's a good point which I pretty much agree with. You mentioned McK's numbers (and I trust your source of that info is reliable). Your argument is further confirmed by looking at other top firms, e.g., Accenture. In 2000 they received 3.2 million resumes and hired 15,000 new consultants. That's approximately 1/2 of 1% acceptance.
So your point is well taken, however, it is NOT point that the original poster made, which is why I'm discussing it with you and not him.
"McKinsey partners are also considered "thought leaders" in their respective fields, and often publish in scholarly journals."
Correct. Booz and Accenture partners and senior execs do this as well. Mck, Booz et. al. partners are well published -- and not just in academic journals, but even more so in industry journals -- and they are often quoted by business and news journalists in publications such as Business Week, The Economist, Financial Times, Forbes and The Industry Standard.
But again, this point was not made by the original poster. If he did make that point, or some of the others you made, then even if one did not agree with him one would have to admit that it at least had some merit and we could agree to disagree.
|
| Message: |
Now, as for some of HIS comments. First of all, he limited himself to
comparing Big 3 Stat firms (he left out Bain, but he was implying all 3)
with Big 5 firms. What about firms that belong to neither group such as
Monitor or Accenture or Booz?
Next, he said "The average consultant generates over $400k/year at [big 3
strat] firms while their Big 5 counterparts generate a mere $125-$150k
each." First of all, until this year, when KMPG and CGEY went public, those
numbers were not always published, so how does he know. Second he is
comparing strat rates at the Big 3 strats with the average of ALL rates at
the Big 5. Does he have the appropriate comparison of strat rates at, say
BCG vs. strat rates at DC or PwC? . . . and what about strat rates at Booz
or Accenture or at the smaller firms like Mars? Is he sure the margin isn't
the same?
PART 3 FOLLOWS . . .
|
|
