Pros: 1. Friendly team and approachable seniors 2. Well-structured real-world problem statements

Cons: Return offer results can be sporadic.

Pros: The best you can ask for.

Cons: There are no downsides.

Pros: Best interview process of my life, in a context where experience trumped nonsense tech screens. Sessions involved strategic and domain-specific discussions with VP and MD technology leaders, and one or two on-the-fly, high-level technical questions. Mostly, it felt like a flattering sales pitch. One of the only times in all my years working that I've left an interview actually feeling good about myself. Premium offer over my then-base salary, including discussion of expected year-end cash awards. All arrived exactly as conveyed, resulting in the highest comp received in my 10 professional career. Moving towards a "startup-lite" culture with business casual attire, working remotely, flexible work hours, and social/networking events. My resume was already decent, but adding GS to it brought a torrent of invitations to interview, networking requests, and other professional and personal benefits that come with being associated with the top global investment bank. Management structure is flat, with no single person making decisions in solitude, including your direct manager. A strong network greatly affects project outcomes. Policy allowing mobility at any time is a big benefit for productive and effective employees, as it shifts bargaining power in their favor by forcing managers to keep the situation equitable or find someone else. Lots of very brilliant people have worked and/or still remain there from a fairly diverse set of backgrounds. Literal rocket scientists and multi-PhD superstars all over the place, even as consultants.

Cons: A strange culture where people often act like doing their job is a favor. It's tricky communicating effectively with intelligent but often thin-skinned and/or insecure personality types holding long-term senior positions. Work often comes informally as high-level projects along the lines of "rethink and simplify the current expensive but proven solution with delivery of an entirely novel, unproven, theoretically more efficient paradigm"—and then judged somewhat qualitatively on minor points and preferences, shaped by popular opinion. Politics here are as weird as they are dicey, as they are crucial to getting ahead or staying afloat. Compensation per employee is nothing like the press/media math of "X profit / Y employees." It's higher than average in general, but there are many who are paid less than their value, along with many medium-term consultants with no skin in the game. On the positive side, there's almost no one who adds little to no value and sticks around for more than 3-6 months like all other banks. Management structure may be flat, but largely because of its opaque, convoluted, and constantly shifting nature. This can make it feel like a full political campaign cycle just to screw in a light bulb. As crazy as it sounds, if you reach a senior level, it becomes difficult to pursue opportunities outside GS, as the universe of companies that can and will provide both a better career trajectory and higher compensation shrinks dramatically. Those that can usually have outlandish expectations with only incremental compensation improvement offered—like describing how to build a profitable algorithmic trading system in explicit, low-level technical detail over the phone in 10 minutes.