To be quite honest with you, I am perplexed by the swathes of young and idealistic graduates from universities across the country who embark upon the journey to work for the giants of corporate and financial skulduggery: Goldman Sachs, Price Waterhouse Coopers, British Petroleum, Credit Suisse, and so on. These are companies that play a central role in some of society’s prevalent social and economic ills – the repercussions of the 2008 financial crisis are still alive in households across the UK, and yet executives at these corporate hegemons remain unrepresentative, unaccountable, and grossly overpaid.

Despite this, eight per cent of Goldman Sachs’s analyst class of 2016 were educated at Cambridge. Can corporate jobs really be the paragons of soulless work, or is there more to them than strenuous hours spent as an underling to faceless multinational firms?

The working conditions at big banks and corporate businesses often receive a lot of negative attention: exceedingly long hours have led to mental health conditions and, in some cases, suicide. However, while many jobs will be strenuous, challenging, and at times unsustainable, such an environment is not alien to many students who have spent years working hard, long hours to get to university, and then to graduate with the best degree possible. Such an atmosphere of pressure and expectation is known to most millennials, and many have learnt to thrive off of it. Perpetuating this in the workplace may well be an incentive for some, who believe that their greatest work and output is achieved under these circumstances. Indeed, they may even find a less pressured environment to be stagnant and insufficiently stimulating.

The world of big business is an electrifying place to work. I suspect working in Whitehall, or Parliament, had once the same atmosphere to it – the sense of action and power being palpable. Now, in the corporate and financial bubble, men in tailored suits hold great power and responsibility. Working for a vast and sprawling organisation with offices around the world is exciting in a way that careers such as the Foreign Office aren’t any longer. Increasingly these corporations and individuals pull the strings of governmental policy and have immense leverage over the political sphere. The executives that emerge from glass-clad skyscrapers the world over have politicians on speed dials and are responsible for employing thousands of people. Being accessory to that, and indeed potentially being the puller of said strings, is tempting. These corporate titans really are in high demand: the next US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is the former CEO of ExxonMobil. Status and power are irresistible. 

“The executives that emerge from glass-clad skyscrapers the world over have politicians on speed dials.”

No analysis of the merits of a corporate job would be complete without a mention of money. It goes without saying that a career in the corporate and banking sectors can yield vast riches for eager graduates. In 2015, investment banks offered the highest average starting salary for graduates at a substantial £45,000 per annum. Needless to say, the ceiling on potential earnings across a career is rather higher; the CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, earned a healthy $23 million in 2015. Money talks, and, when compared against the charity sector for example,where the median salary for CEOs in 2014/15 was £55,500 per annum, it becomes a persuasive factor. For graduates saddled with student debts and a habit of counting every penny, the prospect of a vast salary is a powerful incentive. 

Power dressing and the Patriarchy

Finally, the question of mundane repetition, lack of fulfilment, and sheer boredom has to be addressed. This is sometimes used as a criticism of the corporate world: can anyone really enjoy being a banker or consultant? Investment banking clearly involves skill and intelligence; after all, the bonuses offered in the industry are presumably distributed on merit. The application of expertise in any industry or career will inevitably be fulfilling and rewarding in its own particular way. Equally, consultancy is about problem solving and creating solutions to the needs of companies and individuals. Most jobs fundamentally concern the application of problem solving, whether it be understanding how Glaxo Smith Kline can better target the UK consumer market, or Oxfam attempting to solve world hunger, the fundamental deployment of brain power is the same – ethical differences aside. Ultimately, job satisfaction and enjoyment will come down to an individual; for an economist, investment banking is undoubtedly a fascinating practical application of years of studying, and the designing of complex financial models will be simultaneously interesting and rewarding. While this may not appeal to English literature graduates, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is not a worthwhile and genuinely fulfilling career choice.  

That said, attempting to make the case for pursuing a corporate job is something of a Boris Johnson moment to me. Just as Boris deployed arguments, slogans and statistics that he is alleged to have questionable belief in, and commitment to, I similarly have pitched an argument which I cannot truly believe in. While I do feel that some of the criticism directed towards the corporate sector, and those who pursue careers in it, are hyperbolic, if not unfounded, my overwhelming sense is that graduates are motivated by financial reward – effectively greed – and not because they have some innate calling to become a consultant. Graduates from all walks of life should think carefully about how to deploy their 30 or 40 years of working life that they have to offer, whether that be in the corporate sector or somewhere providing a sense of moral satisfaction as well