[Jobs]

That's interesting. Thanks for the reply.

How about when I divide the attractiveness of a job into the following two factors:
i) Salary(includes career progression, etc.)
ii) Work environment (includes work-life balance, work politics, etc.)

i) Salary
There's a popular saying that: "In big 4s, you will progress unless you're in the bottom 10% in performance. In banks, you will not progress unless you're in the top 10% in performance level."

It seems that an average auditor in big 4s would have a better salary over the long run, as they have many opportunities for progression (outside of big 4s, and to a certain extent, in the big 4). Their progression (and salary) would also correspondingly have more room for growth.

For an average banker, if he performs only average, it seems that his progression (and salary) would not progress as fast as the average auditor since only the top performers will rise up the ranks. Yes, an average performer may rise too, but probably not as fast as an average performing auditor.

ii) Work Environment
I've heard that the hours in banks may actually be worse than that of big 4s. This is because big 4s have their peak and non-peak periods. On the other hand, banks peak throughout the year. I've also heard that the average "unofficial normal working hours" for banks is 830am to 9pm. When we average the hours out, it seems that the hours in big 4s and banks are quite similar.

In addition, due to the nature of the progression (i.e. big 4s almost guaranteed progression, as opposed to banks) and the competitiveness of the people (e.g. on average, those in banks are known to be more competitive due to the higher entrance cut-off), the office politics in banks are rumoured to be much more toxic.



With the above, would big 4s seem to be a better choice than banks? Thanks for reading!