I hardly disagree about the WSJ in general but I read the end of this article differently. The author's final question is a good one: why on earth did she take a job working for the very people whose irresponsibility her research exposed? Her answer, assuming it's sincere and not quoted out of context, is indeed naive: she's doing it to change the culture of Wall Street. Well, I agree with what I imagine the author's implicit points to be: (1) the odds that Wall Street culture will change because she took an analyst job are infinitesimal, it doesn't matter how brilliant and well-intentioned she is; (2) this is the kind of grandiose fantasy you have at that age.
Sadly, many young people overestimate how resilient they will be to a culture they abhor, which is how they get sucked in and assimilated. The risks to the beast are negligible compared to the risks to her soul (if this were a movie we'd all be yelling Nooooooooo...) and she's not unusual in underestimating this.
On the other hand, it's easy to understand why any "large New York investment bank" would want to hire her: anyone who can figure out what they do that masterfully will be useful in doing more of it.
>Sadly, many young people overestimate how resilient they will be to a culture they abhor, which is how they get sucked in and assimilated. The risks to the beast are negligible compared to the risks to her soul (if this were a movie we'd all be yelling Nooooooooo...) and she's not unusual in underestimating this.
I hadn't considered that interpretation earlier (not until it was pointed out in another comment) and I agree that it's completely possible the author meant it like that -- so my attitude was not justified.
It was because of the way the author put "their irresponsible underwriting practices" in quotes in the just before the conclusion that set the tone for me, but once again, I should not have jumped to conclusions.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Interesting you should say that. I wrote a comment last night (and then decided not to post it) that went like this:
That's one of those lines, like the opening sentence of Anna Karenina, that is written so authoritatively that you just take it for granted when you read it, but when you stop and think, there's no reason to believe is true.
(The reason I didn't post it is because I don't accept that the quote, even if true, invalidates what I said about naive people getting sucked into the beast. Disputing whether the quote is true makes it seem like I'm conceding that point, which I ain't. I'm the last person to defend the "reasonable man".)
Edit: Shaw was great though. "Animals are my friends and I don't eat my friends" is Wilde-worthy.
Sadly, many young people overestimate how resilient they will be to a culture they abhor, which is how they get sucked in and assimilated. The risks to the beast are negligible compared to the risks to her soul (if this were a movie we'd all be yelling Nooooooooo...) and she's not unusual in underestimating this.
On the other hand, it's easy to understand why any "large New York investment bank" would want to hire her: anyone who can figure out what they do that masterfully will be useful in doing more of it.