

25% of Yale goes to Consulting, Finance - jrosenblatt
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/sep/30/even-artichokes-have-doubts/

======
jessriedel
Honestly, should the consulting thing confuse or worry anyone?

First, my understanding is that the term "consultant" has become so broad that
it basically just means "contractor" for intellectual jobs; it covers coding,
management, business strategy, and a million other things.

Second, even if we stick to a slightly more narrow definition, consulting
essentially boils down to smart people going around to existing businesses and
telling them how to do their jobs better (hopefully). (Presumably, these
businesses don't need the smart people most of the time, which is why they
don't have them as employees.) At least superficially, this seems like an
appropriate use of smart people: target them at the problems where they are
needed, which are dispersed across many businesses.

Now, if finance and consulting are actually sectors that aren't contributing
to society (a net drain), then there's a real problem. But if so, the fact
that so many smart people are going into them to make money is just the
symptom, not the problem,

~~~
pigbucket
> _Honestly, should the consulting thing confuse or worry anyone?_

I think the author did a pretty good job of explaining why she is worried, and
while your two points are compelling, neither really addresses that
explanation. You've got people who wanted to be artists, or public servants,
or writers, or filmmakers, or non-profit workers, giving up their dreams for
the sake of the security offered seductively by professional recruiters.
That's a trade off for them, and perhaps liable to elicit a general shrug, but
it's hardly a radical position to view so many making that trade off as
potentially a loss for society or, say, humanity. Maybe the Shakespeares of
this world always end up being Shakespeares. But maybe every once in a while
they end up in finance or consultancy. I think it's fine that they have to
freedom to do that. I think it's a shame that so much of the risk is on the
side of "I'm going to be the next Shakespeare."

~~~
kapilkale
This is so rarely the case. At my firm the percentage of people in consulting
who wanted to be artists, public servants, writers, or filmmakers is less than
10%. The way you've described it makes it sound like all these Yalie beatniks
are selling out for the prospect of a stable paycheck.

Many of my colleagues weren't lifelong consultants, but they were lifelong
businesspeople. The ones who left went on to start tech companies, open
restaurants, work in VC, work for non-profits, etc.

No one quit and started writing plays.

~~~
jbooth
Well, whatever their passions were, writing powerpoint decks in order to
justify internal power moves at another company, because someone wanted
something done so they hired you to provide post hoc rationalization for it..
I mean, really? This is what we're doing with "the best and the brightest"?
Expert MS Office users?

~~~
jessriedel
Again: if so, this is a problem with the consulting market, not Yale. You're
not going to change anything by pleading with Yale grads to turn down lots of
money.

Much more interesting is the argument that consulting, though productive,
takes advantage of college student's fear of risk in order to win out over
riskier options which are actually in the students best interest. (I'm
skeptical.) Then, indeed, it would be beneficial to talk to these students
about the problem.

~~~
jbooth
I wasn't criticizing anything so specific as either Yale, students, or a
particular consulting firm. Everyone's going to follow the incentives.

But why are the local incentives so stupid in the larger view?

------
rayiner
I mean, if you had the opportunity to earn six figures at graduation, wouldn't
you go into these fields too?

75% of Yalies are normal people (the other 25% come from money). They're the
children of working professionals, federal government employees, etc. They
have had comfortable upbringings, but their families don't have "fuck you"
money.

They've been pushed and prodded all their life by parents who, like everyone
else without "fuck you" money, are desperately afraid of falling out of the
middle class. Most of the kids don't know it yet, and maybe the parents don't
consciously acknowledge it, but it's a major force underlying the thinking of
every parent who sends his kid to an SAT prep class so he can get a high score
and go to Yale.

At the same time, regular jobs suck. Thanks to the consultants, they're overly
structured, have shitty benefits, and workers are managed by PHB's who don't
know jack-shit about the jobs that the workers do. Upward mobility is
curtailed, because many F500's prefer to hire managers from the ranks of
consultants, instead of promoting people from within. The risk in potentially
more interesting jobs is high: fail to make it big, and you could be stuck in
a job where you get yelled at for punching in a couple of minutes late and to
the extent that you're lucky enough to get health insurance, it'll be on a
shitty plan. Thankfully science/tech is mercifully insulated from this
phenomenon (so far), but many students don't have the particular aptitude or
desire for those fields.

~~~
david927
I imagine the question isn't, "Why are they going into this lucrative
industry?" as much as it is, "why is this industry so exceptionally
lucrative?" To me, the financial industry looks like every other bubble right
before the pop with everyone trying to pile in to the money machine, but any
close examination of the machine reveals an empty ruse.

Maybe you're right and they were pushed into it. But it's short-term thinking
and I am not going to cry when the bubble pops and leaves them holding a big
sack of dead end.

~~~
bane
"To me, the financial industry looks like every other bubble right before the
pop with everyone trying to pile in to the money machine, but any close
examination of the machine reveals an empty ruse."

And I don't think I've ever heard a kind word about management consultants. A
field dominated by 20 somethings with 0 professional work experience brought
in to tell executives and managers of highly successful multi-million/billion
dollar companies how to run their businesses...

A question each and every person that hires a management consultant should ask
themselves, "would I hire this 20 something to run my organization?" If the
answer is no, then why are you paying them to tell you how to run it?

It's a bit like bringing in a random, just out of school, development
consultant and giving them charge over major development teams. Oh wait, I've
seen that happen too, each project then proceeded to go several times over
budget and were delivered broken and late and eventually scrapped.

"why is this industry so exceptionally lucrative?"

The honest to god real reason these guys are hired, and how the system
ultimately works, is for a couple of really quite bad reasons

a) The CEO ends up in a bind with no good ideas, or knows that no matter what
happens, they're screwed. It could be lack of product, or a better competitor,
etc.

b) The CEO doesn't want to appear weak so that people will still follow
him/her while the ship sinks.

So they bring in management consultants, sold as "experts". Having a bunch of
Ivy Leaguers helps with that image. The entire problem, including the blame
for when it inevitably fails, is intended to go onto the Consultants. Their
job is to appear busy and smart, then take the blame (and the large
consultancy fee) when it all falls apart. This leaves the CEO in a good
position "I brought in experts and even _they_ couldn't make it work!".

And that's it.

That's the entire management consultancy industry in a nutshell. Blame for
pay.

A great article on the phenomenon that describes a life I've had confirmed by
several friends in the field who've all since gotten out:
<http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N18/dubai.html>

(they were all also _shocked_ at how hard it is to _actually_ run a company
vs. what their years in management consultancy led them to believe)

~~~
scottkduncan
I think there's another reason related to your a) and b) why companies hire
management consultants, particularly in less dire corporate situations than
you describe above. I think a lot of management consultants' work comes from
boards or division managers who have a difficult decision they know they want
to make (fire workers, spin off less successful business units), but need an
"impartial" "expert" to agree with them to help justify it. The company asks
only the questions they want the consulting company to consider, they get the
answers they want, and they have an "independent" (and expensive) second
opinion that covers them so they can go ahead with what they knew they would
do in the first place.

~~~
suking
That is 1 reason - another reason is because competitor XYZ might have hired
them a few years ago and they can get some inside info. They might say they
don't share anything, but if Person A worked for a past company and he now is
consulting for you - don't you think he'll spill some secrets...

------
kapilkale
I don't regret going to management consulting after college. In my opinion,
it's the best possible career choice for people who don't know what they want
to do.

In my time in consulting, I was exposed to people in every corporate function
possible, and had the chance to see what their jobs were like. I worked for
tech companies, PE firms, corporations, and government-regulated entities. I
spent 6 months in growth equity and got to learn what the buy-side is like.

If I had known then what I know now, then I would have told my 21 year old
self to go work at FB or Amazon or some small startup.

But the value proposition for the firm I went to was unequivocal. We will pay
you a lot. The opportunities you have when you leave will pay you even more.
You'll get to work with other extremely smart people. You will see a ton of
industries. You will be able to go to whatever b-school you want when you're
ready to apply. And if you get good at your job after a couple years, your
hours will go down substantially.

~~~
bocmaxima
FB and Amazon turned out just fine without your help, the only reason you wish
you had worked there was in order to extract and benefit from the great pool
of wealth and prestige. Your value to society is nil for as long as you spend
more mental energy consuming more than you create. Remember that all highly
educated people bear a responsibility much greater than ourselves, and this
responsibility is fulfilled only by sacrifice and discomfort.

~~~
jjmaxwell4
> this responsibility is fulfilled only by sacrifice and discomfort.

The highly educated do not owe society anything. No one should have a right to
my intelligence. If I want to contribute, I can and will, and if I'm smart
enough and execute well enough, I will be rewarded, both monetarily and
through watching my creation create real value.

This does not mean that sacrifice and discomfort are the only ways to create
value. Wile start ups are roller coasters of emotion, I can bet you that Jobs,
Gates, Page et al. Have gleaned much more pleasure from their creations then
sacrifice, discomfort and pain.

And the only person who can make them do anything is themselves. Larry and
Sergey did not bear a responsibility from society to create Google. They did
by their own choice.

~~~
bocmaxima
Sacrifice and discomfort is not a MEANS to anything, it does however imply
delayed gratification that is mostly unpleasant and sends many fleeing to the
nearest consulting firm. This would make sense if you actually read the
article, which describes many disillusioned ivy's unwilling to sacrifice a
comfortable lifestyle for what could otherwise be more personally enriching
and meaningful work.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here—nobody wants the rights to
your intelligence. But if you take a step back, you can see that every one of
us has benefitted greatly from others' intelligent contributions to humanity
and we can choose to either keep that wheel spinning or put ourselves at the
mercy of others' history-making. If you want to use your tech idols as a
yardstick for morality and virtue, you ought to look a little closer.

"I mean, we’re constantly taking things. It’s a wonderful, ecstatic feeling to
create something that puts it back in the pool of human experience and
knowledge.” -STEVE JOBS

Some of my favorite quotes, however, are from the mouth of Napoleon:

"All my life I have sacrificed everything—comfort, self-interest, happiness—to
my destiny."

"Men are moved by two levers only: fear and self interest."

------
turing
I was actually discussing this with a fellow Yale student over dinner tonight.
We both came to the same, largely negative, conclusion as the professors
interviewed in the article: "it’s an unproductive use of Yalies’ time."

These students are given opportunities most people only dream of. We are
exposed to leaders in our fields every day. We are blessed with a $20 billion
endowment that enables nearly anything we can envision. Many of us receive
tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars in financial aid. The fact that so many
choose to go on to careers that do so little to give back is, in my opinion,
shameful.

~~~
jrockway
Maybe Yale should use that endowment to pay people to give back to society? In
the end, people don't become bankers or consultants because they are looking
for the easiest way to be a drain on society. They do it because society gives
them a lot of money for doing it, and they have to pay off their $100,000
student loans and raise a family.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"and they have to pay off their $100,000 student loans and raise a
> family."_

With credit to _Thank You For Smoking_ \- that's the Yuppie Nuremberg Defense.
Not saying that consulting/finance is like being a merchant of death, but it's
really a poor justification for most things, and my eyelids twitch every time
I hear it used.

------
dummy3account6
I'm very surprised it's that low. From talking to guys here you'd think it's
more like half.

Original source that they don't link to:
[http://www.yale.edu/oir/open/pdf_public/YC%2010%20Sr%20Study...](http://www.yale.edu/oir/open/pdf_public/YC%2010%20Sr%20Study%20Report.pdf)

If you look at the original source, you'll find that 1) it's only 25% if you
don't count Yalies who went to grad school, about a quarter of the class, and
2) there was a HUGE (50%) falloff from 2008 to 2010 due to the crash, so in
2010 it was more like 12-15%, not 25%.

(Yale senior here)

------
qq66
I now run a startup (<http://getliveloop.com>) but started out of college with
2 years at McKinsey. I can't compare it against anything else as a job right
out of college, but I learned a lot about various types of businesses, how to
communicate to executives, and the general polish that I needed to get from
MIT to a fundraising meeting on Sand Hill Road. I also got to work and live
for a few months in 9 different cities around the world, which gave me a great
perspective on what I care and don't care about in terms of where I live,
where I work, and who I associate with.

I found it very useful to me, I didn't have to come up with convoluted
justifications for why I did it, and I'd do it again if I was in a similar
situation.

------
jgfoot
A revealing part of the article comes when Yale Prof. Hicks says that, rather
than develop skills with consulting firms, "There are a half-dozen more life-
affirming ways you can acquire those same skills, including taking a class at
night at a junior college while you do something more interesting."

This is not a good advertisement for Yale. In addition to costing a lot of
money, Yale costs four years of lifetime. Yet, after all that, students are
left in a position where if they want business skills, they have to hold down
a job and go to night school at a junior college?

~~~
crazygringo
Yale is, by design, a non-professional school (for undergraduates). Its
philosophy is that it focuses entirely on a liberal arts education to make you
a better, more-informed, deeper human being. (In fact, it won't even calculate
your GPA for you.)

Because of this, it does not have business classes. You cannot major in
communications or public relations. It doesn't have an official pre-med
program. The idea is, you've got the rest of your life to do all that.

Whether you think this is a smart philosophy, of course, depends on your point
of view.

And of course, after you graduate from undergrad, then you can try Yale's
graduate programs, among which you'll find some of the top professional
schools in the country.

------
jasonshen
It goes to show that what scares high achieving people the most is the risk
that they may no longer continue to be high achieving. This happened a lot at
Stanford too. Smart people are scared of uncertainty in their career because
they feel they have more to lose.

------
sudonim
I almost went the consulting route. It seemed so appealing. Good pay, lots of
variety in projects. In the end I didn't. As a result, I've gotten real
experience working at real jobs. I didn't consult on how to improve sales. I
sold stuff. And now, I don't consult on how to implement sharepoint at
megacorp. I make software.

The salaries are still higher in banking and consulting. But they aren't high
enough to compensate for the utter lack of value I'd be providing to society.

------
stfu
This is not really that much surprising. Taking a look at the comments from
someone with years of Ivy business school placement experience (
[http://poetsandquants.com/2011/06/23/handicapping-your-
shot-...](http://poetsandquants.com/2011/06/23/handicapping-your-shot-at-a-
top-school/) ) all that diversity, creativity and a personality talk seems
just a fluffy facade. In fact most likely the only troubling aspect for Yale
is that they couldn't rise the number above 25%.

------
wng
the consulting/banking industries create such a high opportunity cost that
doing something else seems senseless. it's unfortunate that recent grads are
stuck in this high level corporate rat race, with promises of high bonuses but
mostly pretty boring careers.

I think one solution would be to limit the access these firms have with
students, and to curb their "predatory" hiring. But alas, these firms are
large donors to universities, and their executives are as well.

Alas, American politics AND education are birds of the same feather. Both sing
the same tune of ethics, ideals and values; and both are preyed on by the same
corporations.

------
tikhonj
One of the things I love about being in CS is that there is much less pressure
to go into management consulting or finance--straight out of college, tech
companies offer similar stability and pay (perhaps more stability and less
pay, but it's close) coupled with _very_ nice working conditions and actual,
nontrivial engineering problems.

For me and my EE/CS friends there are three options that come before finance
(I don't think anybody even considers management consulting): grad school,
FB/Google/MSFT...etc or a start up. I only know one person eager to enter
finance, compared to many people interested in, and usually already working
towards, either an academic path, a stable programming career or founding
their own company.

That said, there is some very serious selection bias in my group of friends,
so this is probably not indicative of my university at large. Particularly,
almost everybody I know is in some sort of engineering, and the school I'm at
is particularly strong in engineering (especially EE/CS). I suspect if I had
more friends from the business school I would have a very different picture.

~~~
Maro
The point is, they can go into M/C/F, make 6-figure salaries at age 23, then
go from there. They'll be making a whole lot more than the vast majority of
engineers even at Google, _without taking risks_. By the time they're 35,
they'll be very wealthy, about as wealthy as you'd be if you start a startup
and sell at a $10M valuation (and keep $1-2M), _but they don't have to take
any risks_.

But you have to work very hard (all the way from High School), tread along a
well defined path, and it'll work out. It's a standardized, reproducible
variant of the American Dream of living a wealthy life.

------
bane
While it's not jail (they are staying off the streets and out of gangs), it'd
be nice if they were going into fields that actually contributed to society.

------
samgro
That's all? At Princeton I'm pretty sure it was closer to 50%.

~~~
peterzakin
haha. I don't think it's that high. But I do think it's higher than 25%.

~~~
samgro
This isn't an apples to apples comparison, but according to the Prince, 41.5%
of the graduating seniors my year (2008) "who had accepted full-time
employment offers by graduation" were employed in the "financial sector"
(<http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/03/08/25465/>).

Not an apples to apples comparison with the Yale article, but my reaction is
still surprised that the number is that small at Yale.

~~~
crazygringo
Yale and Princeton student cultures could not be more different. Yale attracts
a more ultra-liberal, save-the-world student body, whereas Princeton attracts
a more ultra-conservative, make-the-money student body.

It doesn't suprise me that the original posted article came out of the Yale's
student newspaper, instead of a Princeton one.

~~~
peterzakin
I think you're stereotyping too strongly here. The difference in character
between Princeton and Yale is marginal.

------
bane
I might point out, after reading many of the comments here, that people who
are currently or have done management consulting in the past all say
essentially the same thing about the experience -- it was great for them, they
saw lots of stuff, traveled a bit, made some money.

But none of them say they actually helped a single employee of a single
organization actually accomplish anything in particular for all the fees and
free experience being paid to them so they could gain this wide experience,
travel and fat paycheck.

And if it's not clear, this is precisely what we're talking about with the
field not being a net contributor to society.

(also interestingly, to the person, every single person I've ever known who
worked in the field all say they would have done something different if they
could go and tell their 21 year old self one thing)

~~~
ryanlchan
Strategy consultants are extremely highly paid, extremely specialized temp
workers. We only create as much value as the client asks us to get.

It's a time-money play. We do the work that creating or scaling a corporate
strategy group would do if you had the 6-12 months to go out, hire a team,
train them together, create the necessary links to the organization, and go do
the work. With consultants, you can hire and fire us at any time, no
severance, pensions, or hard feelings. Once our work's done, we leave.

I'm not saying it's the best thing since sliced bread. But zero net
contributor it isn't.

~~~
bane
_We do the work that creating or scaling a corporate strategy group would do
if you had the 6-12 months to go out, [a] hire a team, [b] train them
together, [c] create the necessary links to the organization, and [d] go do
the work._ note: [a]-[d] inserted for reference

And here it is, I would argue that consultants offer (to each reference
point):

a faster time to [a], you hire them as a group instead of sourcing each worker
separately

no [b], after all, they are ~20 year old "experts" led by an experience
consultant manager or firm partner who's sole job is to stash the squadron of
kids at the other company and check up on them every so often, then give a
grand presentation at the end of the contract term. Why would they need to
understand the particulars of how a company works or how to move them to a
path to success? After all, probably nobody on the team has actually run a
successful company. And businesses all fit into nice b-school categories
anyways.

no [c], it's like a group of shock troops falls out of the sky on an
organization and commences to create chaos. I've never seen something so
disruptive to a company as a consulting team inserting themselves into the
day-to-day of an organization. They don't know anybody, they don't want to
know anybody, and it doesn't help them to know anybody beyond charting out the
organization and work structure of the company.

a debatable [d]. Oh, okay, I'm being harsh about [d]. All of my friends who
work in mgmt consulting work their gosh darn asses off, generating thousands
of powerpoint slides and binders full of diagrams.

Does it amount to much? I dunno. There's some value from a Knowledge
Management perspective for an organically grown organizations to understand
how information and communications occur in their company. Mapping out de
facto business processes I guess is helpful.

Does it require a team of consultants to come in and do this? Nah, most
companies could do this with one or two dedicated hires for far cheaper and
far less disruption.

In my personal, admittedly anecdotal experience, these things _could_ be
useful if they were done properly. But I've never actually seen a consultant
team actually interview the line workers who would actually know this stuff.

It's like it's beneath them, and too time consuming to figure out that the
blue form #4 doesn't go from department x on floor 5 to department c on floor
6, but actually goes from John in department x to Lisa in admin, who then
brings it to her boss Karl who then collects them in a stack to give out at
the weekly management meeting to Jessi who works on floor 6, but not in
department c, but who _is_ married to John (no relation to the previous John),
and gives it to him at night over dinner in department c, who works for the
ultimate recipient of the form, John's brother Jake who is supposed to manage
the department and initiate processing the forms, but has a drinking problem
and only shows up to work in the middle of the week to do so.

Why this convoluted process? Why not just have blue form #4 go from x->c like
the manager in x believes happens (but doesn't because she doesn't follow the
de facto processes enough to know this)? Who knows? The consultants don't know
that's for sure because they never investigate this Rube Goldberg machine.

And when analyzing why it's so slow and convoluted, they analyze it to death
and might just decide that department c is the slow boat in the fleet and its
more cost effective to eliminate that department by merging them with x and
eliminating redundancies when really they just need to replace Jake and make
the form electronic so the form is emailed between floors.

You think I'm making the previous example up, but I'm not. And what actually
happened is that when they merged the department they fired John (#2) which
sparked Jessi to desire to leave the company, and she brought along half of
her department which _didn't_ need to have that happen. Within a year 12 other
key people left out of bad blood with the company sparked by this initial
round of redundant layoffs. And oh yeah, Jessi, who left with her team,
started her own company with her husband John and that staff, who ultimately
ended up contracting back at their old company, to do their old jobs, at 3x
the hourly charge rate.

And Jake still works there, whenever he feels like coming in. But to make up
for his personal failures, the company has had to hire a fleet of
subordinates.

End result? 3 failed multi-million dollar projects, not late, failed. Rehiring
the same employees at 3x the charge rate as contractors, and to support Jake
they had to increase head count to the point that it's virtually unchanged
from before the entire merger of department x and c.

And oh yeah, the company is out a $2 million dollar consulting fee.

------
capkutay
The fact that I know too many people under the age of 22 with no degrees (not
to say they're unintelligent), running their own successful "consulting"
companies makes me question the industry on its own. Don't get me wrong, it's
a great career path for some. But I would hope that any venture I'm apart of
won't need it...better options would include corporate law firms that double
in business development or having investors with experience and know-how in
your field...

~~~
dsandrowitz
I think there is a big difference between Bain or McKinsey and some social
media consultancy started by a kid who believes that prolific tweeting is the
future of marketing. Both paths might lead to varying degrees of economic
vampires, but at least the freelances are trying to build their own business
instead of joining the overlords.

------
sethbannon
What this article doesn't mention is the burgeoning Yale Entrepreneurial
community, which has been experience a great boom as of late.

~~~
turing
This is true. Both the Yale Entrepreneurial Institute and the Yale
Entrepreneurial Society are doing great things. In fact, two businesses opened
in downtown New Haven this fall that were the direct result of YEI's programs.
The fact that the upcoming "HackYale" web entrepreneurship course attracted
600 interested students is also comforting.

------
kosei
Just a note - it's 25% of employed graduates that go to consulting/finance.
Not of all graduates. This is a significant difference.

------
michaelochurch
There's a lot that can be said about this, so I'm just going to focus on what
I think is the nub of the disconnect here.

Studying philosophy, art, history, religion, science and the classics (that
is, _education_ as opposed to mere training) is supposed to bring people in
touch with their humanity and, more relevantly, their _mortality_ \-- the fact
that we'll all die and that it can happen at any time.

The first 5 to 15+ years in the professional and corporate life (and not just
in the demonized investment banks and consulting firms, because this is a
common trait of human organizations and every bit as entrenched in academia
and mainstream corporations) are about _denying_ said mortality. You're
expected to focus on a far-off distant future that may never come and, in the
mean time, "pay your dues"-- that is, work in conditions that no one would
accept unless harboring a delusion of infinite time, a misguided belief that
the present doesn't matter because the future will be flush with riches,
prestige, and make all those present-time sacrifices irrelevant.

I don't support war or conscription in general, but it's no coincidence that
the "yuppie" phenomenon was born after the abolition of The Draft. Once kids
lost awareness of death (not that it exists, but that it will happen to them
at an inconvenient time; it's always "inconvenient") they could treat their
own time as limitless and without value, so they relaxed their demands for
autonomy, rewarding work, and mentorship in exchange for a 10 or 20 percent
bump in immediate prosperity.

I would call this a failure of the educational system, but I don't think it
is. We have a deeply deluded culture focused on the transient and on seduction
and I don't think (even if individual professors do a great job) this is
something that schools can fix.

------
georgieporgie
On a vaguely related note, the latest Planet Money podcast, "How Money Got
Weird," was interesting. Satyajit Das talked about how a large airline was
essentially turned into a bank by ever more creative accounting and finance
practices. It gets into the rise of finance in traditionally unrelated fields.

<http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/>

