Hi all,Would like your thoughts on this one...Currently a Senior Associate at a top 3 strategy firm (McK/bcg/bain) and got an offer for the following: In-house org transformation group at a large mutual fundPros:*9 to 5 job (literally)*Fast track to management (group is <10, with half ex BCG/McK/Bain)*Good culture and perks/benefitsCons:*Compensation ($160K all in)*Unclear salary evolutionThoughts?

You should always stay, on the well known basis that although if you stay there will be trouble, if you go there will be double.I think it was Fermat that worked out the algebra on that.

You&apos;re effectively trading (potential) salary progression against vastly improved lifestyle, assuming you are interested in the industry & role.It sounds like a great offer for your tenure, and would be a good jumping off point. If you don&apos;t jump now, the MBB "golden handcuffs" will make it increasingly difficult to jump in the future.

I think you should both stay and go.I believe it was Heisenberg that solved that one.

I vote for leave.I don&apos;t need to tell you that mutuals are fairly predictable animals (in the sense of being a conservative bet) and with Volker etc pushing prop trading out of the mainstream and into the &apos;shadow banking&apos; sector etc the outlook is distinctly rosy. More interesting still that this previously fragmented and even eccentric sector is maturing fast with the injection of talent and capital, leading to some fascinating opportunities for experienced hires who know their way around org change. As a SA in MBB you have proved yourself. That will remain with you. Frankly you run very little risk of getting this decision wrong. Even if this doesnt go the way you want it to in the medium term you&apos;ll be ideally placed to either go out independently as a heavy hitter contractor - Cool is a good example - or come back into consulting rounded out with industry side experience.Remain in MBB and you will soon be hitting traffic around next promotions - it will get harder and more politic to secure each step up. Not a criticism, but if you have enjoyed rapid progression so far expect this to slow down and be more complex to navigate.All in all it&apos;s a nice dilema to have.

BEP, I believe you mean Schrödinger. The cat in the box (with the radioactive material which has a 50% chance of setting off the Geiger counter which in turn breaks the poison and kills the cat) is both dead and alive until you open the box.So the guy should both leave and stay. Or until we hear from him again, he has both left and stayed. :)Nonsense apart, I&apos;d leave for the short hours.

Schrodinger vs, Hiesenburg confusionAs, I&apos;m sure everyone is aware Schrodingers cat thought experiement was a put forward to highlight some of the paradoxes present in quantum theory if you subscribed to the so called copenhagen interpretation - namely regarding the super posistion of states were the wave form does not collapse into a particle (or specific waveform) until observed - that is the observing is inherently entangled with the state of the object being observed (of course this is non-sense paradox (oxymoron?) to think about given the limitation of the spped of light bieng the max speed and time only going in one direction).Where as Hiesenberg&apos;s uncertainly principle also a quantum effect, relates to the fact you can not increase precision in undertanding velocity (kinetic enegery state - same holds for other energies) without reducing the accuracy of measurement of position; or vv.Therefore, related to the OPs position. Both could be used, but not as intended above byt he posters! sorryFor Schrodingers - at present he&apos;s employment waveform (as far as we &apos;the observers&apos; are concerned) is smeard across both leaving and staying - it is only when he posts that we will be certain. In QM there is actually very little entanglement here.For Hiesenberg - we could know with increasing accuracy more about where the OP is.(e.g more detials about staying) or more details about where he is going (leaving) but not a higher level of accuracy about both.. If you want him to both stay and go .. may I suggest leaving physics and heading to metaphysics Perhaps Descartes dualisitc seperation between body and mnd. that is his body could stay but his mind leave?oh yes - am bored on a Friday afternoon conf call - and not playing mahjong today.

Metaphysical considerations aside, your advice was helpful. Unfortunately, both staying and leaving is not an option. I may leave for 2-3 years and come back, though...

From my knowledge of Star Trek: Deep Space 9, I believe a "tachyon" (sp?) can exist simultaneously in two places? Perhaps he should read such management "classics" as "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" and become more "tachyon-like"?

skeebo I doubt Cartesian dualistic approach would work - Descartes used extension and physical interaction in the world, and the awareness of that extension, as central to his ontological proof. If separated neither would be able to substantiate the existence of the other.

This thread inspired me to find http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMaE6toi4mkLove it! I had forgot how good they were!