Investment Banking is the only place where discrimination still truly exists
I see bankers take one look at a school and immediately dismiss students - in fact, they require that they take at least ~5-10 students from target schools, regardless of their credentials.
And you know when they ask for your university when you apply at a bank? It's used to weed out the non-target students.
Frankly its sick, and worse than any of this fake racism stuff that people claim nowadays.
It hardly matters how good you are, it just matters what stamp you've got on your jacket. I hope you've got the right one.
Going to a target school is usually not a reflection of what kind of a person you are or how hard you work. It's a reflection of the home you grew up in. It's a reflection of what class your parents grew up in. Were they smart enough to hire tutors? Did they understand how important the SAT was and did they get you prep? Did they make sure you applied to the best schools? Did they prepare you for a career?
The best students across universities are generally the same. I understand that people are trying to maintain the reputation of the industry (you wouldn't want to work with GS if any kid could get in, would you?), but this is disgusting. At least make it somewhat merit-based.
Christ, these people make me sick.
But not as sick as the people want to break in make me. The whole reason banks do this is because everyone, including you, is chasing prestige.
People care more about what they're called and what bank you work at than the work they are actually doing. I know half of you won't work for certain banks just because of their name. The other half just want to be investment bankers so they can see people's eyes light up.
Their first thought isn't, "who will teach me the most", it's "what will other people think?". It's not just across banking, it's across everything you do.
You create your own hell, and now you live in it. If you want things to change, it starts with you.
Make all your decisions for the right reasons. Ignore what other people think. Work because you enjoy the results you produce. Trust yourself.
Only then will you be happy.
I know you're a troll but if people at non-targets have critical thinking skills as bad as yours then I see why banks wouldn't hire them.
Also, it's funny you use Goldman Sachs as an example because from what I've seen they're more open to hiring good talent regardless of your school
This is like saying the NBA discriminates against those who are short or not good at shooting.
.
Didn't mean to hurt your fragile ego by suggesting that the brand name of your school doesn't reflect the quality of human being you are.
.
Devil's Advocate: Discrimination (Originally Posted: 02/27/2012)
Reminder again, playing devil's advocate here:
A lot of faiths are based on belief. No evidence to support, it's just "faith". Thus demonstrating a characteristic of someone that they make decisions, big ones, without any evidence to back them up.
Some roles are heavily evidence/decision related. Do the 2 not contradict each other? Would it be fair to make a decision on the evidence that they make decisions without evidence, or what they consider to be evidence is not?
Before the discrimination band just jump in and say but you can't etc. you will find your country discriminates in employment laws for some jobs.
Gender: Women on the front line? special forces?
Beliefs:
Would you be happy with a creationist teaching your kids science? Or maybe someone who was held back at school and needed extra time in their med school exams doing your heart bypass operation.
Nationality (regardless of Visa):
Buying voting shares in defence companies? Good luck if you aren't american. Not electable as President (but Governor is allowed).
So in essence, since the federal viewpoint is that discrimination is acceptable/right for some roles, is it not discriminatory to not allow others to do the same?
If the candidate is faith driven enough to have it affect their job then i would like to think that they would get dinged for other reasons, but obviously not always the case.
cant really speak on the broader discrimination laws, i know that i would want quality service no matter where i go. I would like the guy in the back making my mcdonnalds to be a 5star chef, but thats not going to happen.
Oh man. This is going to be a long thread. Just to clarify: Is this a government vs. private thing? I believe that restrictions for certain jobs are very different from the idea of discrimination.
This is a big leap of logic. I for one don't think this assertion is true in the least. Do you have any evidence to support this generalization?
Name one religon that is based on more then just blind faith.
Trazer can you clarify your idea. This is going to turn into a religious pissing match.
Should we take into account beliefs as evidence of what people are willing to do (actions) based on the factors they made to determine them, or should this, for whatever reason, be exempt from the decision making progress regarding employment.
If they are willing to dedicate a substantial amount of life resource into something based on no evidence, (evidence as an impartial, scientific being would accept), then can you take inference that they will approach the job in the same way?
What factors are we allowed to discriminate in? This isn't a government vs. private. I used those example because most agree with them, yet they are discrimination, so we do accept it on one level, but not the other.
Firstly, banks want to quickly weed through candidates - good school = prob smart and good networking/connections (important in business) Secondly, "fit" is very important. Ik some older college grads who wanted to break into certain tech companies but they didn't fit the "culture". So it's not just wall st. The culture in IB is largely driven by prestige - the nature of winning clients and deals and having polished bankers. Thirdly, when u have a sought-after job with many applicants, the employer has the power to be picky. I have a friend who is trying to become a tv/movie actor and there are literally hundreds of people applying to one role in a cast. Every applicant has the ability to play and act in the role but my friend (and every actor) gets discriminated for the way his eyebrows look, ears look, voice sounds, etc. In IB recruiting, many candidates are capable of doing the job but little things such as that extra ivy league polish can separate 2 candidates. btw i'm not trying to justify it
Is discrimination an issue today? (Originally Posted: 10/06/2012)
Hello everybody. I apologize if I placed this thread in the wrong forum and/or there is the thread for discrimination. As you can tell, I am new.
Specifically, I'd like to talk about the deaf people that are interested in any types of banking.
Is it possible for the recruiters to reject a deafie that require the additional accommodations? Is deafness a big issue today? How can I make myself a decent candidate?
I happened to find the article about the deaf person working for the IBM. After he graduated at Gallaudet University, he worked for several F500 companies and then he went to Cornell for MBA. I definitely want to be on his path.
Thanks for your time, monkeys.
Why did this get monkey shit when it's true? Can the mods please start banning these kids and their alt accounts? AndyLouis they don't add anything of value to any discussion and just stand around yelling "woe is me!" to each other.
They can't technically reject you solely due to deafness. If you have the right skills and the potential they'll make the accomodations necessary for you to do your job.
I really appreciate your answer. How can I inform a recruiter of my deafness without stating that I am deaf on my resume? According to people here, it's not such a good idea to state that I am disabled on my resume so that's why I am asking this question. I just cannot imagine when I see an interviewer's reaction after I tell him/her that I am deaf.
Just inform them that you have special hearing needs when they would need to know about it in the process. I wouldn't bring it up too early, but don't shock someone late in the process either. When you need them to make accommodations for the first time would be the best time.
Brutally honest, I cannot see it unless you are beyond excellent across the board. Its just more difficult for them than they would want to deal with e.g. HR phone call right off the bat. Plus, I know I'm on the phone at my desk quite often, not sure the workaround for someone in your situation. If you can read lips, maybe at a very small firm but probably not something front office.
I have a disability. It is not as visible as your deafness but it still will DESTROY any healthcare plan of a company I would work for. The way I have always thought about it is, if you can avoid disclosing it (GINA 2007 ftw!) that would be best. Obviously deafness is probably going to be out there pretty early, but you get what I'm saying. While they won't deny you for it on paper, there are so many factors that can ding the most qualified candidate, they might use your minor faults as justification for not hiring you when in essence it is because of your disability.
Why would my deafness "destroy" any healthcare plan of a company? My health is pretty amazing, but I just cannot hear. I think I don't get what you said. Care to explain? Can you please explain what GINA 2007 is? I am the first deaf person in my whole generations -- I was born that way when my mom had a flu. I am aware that I am going to face challenges when it comes to jobs. Actually, it's nothing new for the deaf community. There are deaf doctors, nurses, accountants, etc. So, I think I can do that.
I'm not saying that your deafness would harm the HC plan, that was more in reference to me. Companies tend to want the employees that are the best with the least amount of hassle. At least that's what I've seen. In all honesty, I don't think deafness is particularly inhibiting in many jobs- the only obvious problem that I would foresee would be using the phone.
GINA essentially says that a person can not be discriminated against for genetic information. Plus the Americans With Disabilities Act says that you don't have to disclose your disability to an employer. There are obvious benefits to disclosing you disability- and yours seems like it would be necessary to do so.
The whole issue is that if you disclose your illness during the interview process (which you will have to if you sign) it is really hard to prove discrimination. If you get the offer and then tell them it's easy pickings for an ADA suit.
Honestly I have no idea what to do in your specific situation. I would probably be upfront with it if you need to use sign language, have a speech impediment, or something else that is obvious. Good luck man, looks like you have the right mindset ging forward.
I appreciate your time for answering. I really do. How did you overcome the challenges as a disabled person?
I will more likely disclose my disability during the interview process or the event so that they will be better prepared. Obviously, I have a chance to be at a disadvantage, but I feel that it's necessary to do that. The funny thing is, my friend, who is working at the marketing company, told me the exact same thing. "If they give you an offer and you want it, show 'em ADA suit." The using the phone issue can be easily solved, but I just have to "educate" people who are ignorant about the technology being available for the deaf people. The technology for the deaf people is quite amazing so I'm gonna take advantage of it.
discrimination is more of an issue than it has ever been in the past. Check out Calgary. Canadas most racist city no matter what other people say if you are not white you cant even enter a dam club.
Clearly just read the thread title and not the actual thread.
If you can communicate by reading lips and you sound normal then there won't be any problems--they'll love hiring a deaf person and bragging about it. It gives them cover to discriminate against others. If your issues are obvious then you probably won't get the job unless you're a stellar candidate. Life's unfair. I'd rather by deaf and better looking since I don't like music much anyway.
It's quite possible to learn how to read lips really well, but it's really time consuming and hiring a speech pathologist is so expensive. All I am doing right now is, reading my professors' lips while watching my interpreters in the classrooms. It's not helpful, but I have no choice. Some deaf people are pretty good at reading lips simply because they went to the "oral" school, which I didn't attend. I attended the deaf school until the high school freshman year.
Maybe get really good at lip reading (if that's even something you can improve at this point? I'm not sure...)? A relative works at a hospital with a deaf lady that can read lips and talk so well that he said you wouldn't be able to tell that she's deaf unless she told you. Good luck.
dude good luck you sound like a cool guy and i would totally hire you
Get a high GPA and don't worry if you don't make Ibanking. It's it cut throat as shit. Something like Corp Fin/Accounting can be done without needing to hear; banking not so much.
But seriously mad props. As long as you are capable, which I am sure you are, you can leverage your deafness to benefit you. I could only assume that guy from IBM would love to pull strings for you/just be a mentor. I hope you make it man, good luck!!!!
edited.
I am here to bump this. I feel it's necessary to do so considering the fact that I am still looking for more inputs and advices on communication barriers, discrimination, etc. I just want to get a better understanding of the nature of your work.
I also have questions for you guys who are working as bankers at small-BB firms, financial analysts at Fortune 500, TS analysts at Big 4 firms, etc. Speaking of my deafness, do you think my deafness will be a big factor for the hiring process as well as the work environment? I seem to think so. The reason I am asking that is, communication is the main key for every and each group, but I am confident that there will be a solution that may break down the communication barriers. I just want to know your opinion on this (it's okay to be honest no matter what if it's cruel or friendly). I can use that to my advantage! How do you feel about having a deaf colleague in your group? Big group counts if you will.
I am aware of the fact that there’s uncertainty in my future due to my deafness, but I just make sure that it’s not a major hindrance. I know it’s not going to be an easy path, but I am confident that it can be done. I’ll just wait for a right employer to recognize that in order for me to be sitting in their office for an interview.
Actually, I’ve met some who are very understandable, but they work in completely different fields. I’ve met very a few people who are currently working in the finance/accounting fields (think J&J), and they are very optimistic about breaking down the communication barriers and working with deaf colleagues. The official answer is that there’s no discrimination, which they are not allowed to discriminate against people with disabilities, that they are required to make reasonable accommodation. I’ve heard that all my life. I think the real answer gets a bit more complicated because even if no future employer ever admits that my disability had an effect on a hiring decision, it can still be the deciding factor. That’s what I am concerned mostly about, but again, it depends on the employer’s views on disability.
To respond to your original question, I do believe discrimination does exist. Laws state they cannot discriminate because your disability, but that means nothing from my experience.
I graduated with a degree in accounting from a well known school, I had a good GPA, I had an internship at a top corporation, and I recently passed the CPA. My resume has landed me interviews, but I've only had one job offer. I was never one to jump to call discrimination not was overly sensitive until I was asked during interviews that were clearly aimed at my disability. Also, when an small accounting firm manager told me during an interview employees sometimes sleep at the office and if "that's the lifestyle I can handle."
I don't want to sound cynical or discourage you, but its just my experience. If your still looking for a job, try the US government - they don't discriminate. Or try to get phone interviews. I got my internship and then first job offer after phone interviews only.
Good luck.
I thought you got an internship. What are you crying about now?
Applicant name discrimination based on origin (Originally Posted: 08/20/2013)
I read an article linking to a Canadian study showing that applicants with English names have significantly higher success in landing interviews than those with Chinese, Indian, Pakistani or mixed names.
I have a Latin American first name, and an English last name. The study did not test Latin American names, but I imagine the results would be similar. Now I'm thinking about changing my first name on my applications to its English counterpart (i.e. Jose to Joseph, Juan to John) to boost my chances, even if only by so much.
Do you think this is a big no-no? Perhaps some recruiters might consider it lying? If asked I could always say that the English version is easier for people to pronounce (non latinos often have issues with my name).
Article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/05/20/bc-ubc-…
He woke up from his dream.
you could use an English sounding first name as your "nick name" but put down your real, legal name on the written application which comes later in the process (the forms you have to fill out for all the checks).
Right, background checks/legal documents would require legal names, but is it wrong or risky to put an English name on one's resume or cover letter?
Well if you want to legally change you name you can, however you will have to list your birth name for the back ground check.
Agree with above posters. I went to a liberal arts school with lots of internationals. Lots of the kids from Asia used English names when people referred to them.
I do it because I want to fit in.
political discrimination (Originally Posted: 12/05/2011)
In your opinion, Does your work history brand your resume a political bent such that it prevents you from working on the opposite side of the fence?
Hypothetical example, I work for Koch Industries' Finance Dept. (tea party supporter) and then apply for a job at a hedge fund where the PM is liberal.
A liberal PM?
yea...must be a troll.
Just learn to talk out of both sides of your mouth. Where I work, the MD is very liberal, and the veep is a die hard conservative and they both asked me political questions at the interview and so lots of doublespeak made them both happy. Just because you worked at a place doesn't necessarily mean you subscribe to the political mood, but leave stuff like "OWS organizer" or "GOP strategist" off just to be safe....unless you know the person on the other end reading your resume.
Honestly, only the most politically active people will know anyting about Koch Industries. I've been an active Republican for the better part of 15 years (since I was 11 or 12) and never even heard of the Koch brothers until the Wisconsin union debate earlier this year--even now I still don't know much about them.
The truth is, however, I would definitely discriminate as the hiring manager against person's working for, say, George Soros. So yeah, if you ran into a liberal Democrat political activist who is the hiring manager you're probably screwed, but the odds of that happening are very small. A run in the mill Democrat/liberal will not even notice.
First of all anybody who reads the news regularly knows who the Koch bros are and has for quite some time. Secondly, I am not sure what industry you work in, but discriminating against somebody for working for Soros would be pretty strange given Soros' track record of success...seems extremely self-defeating. I am a libertarian and wouldnt discriminate against anybody who i felt could help me make money...I might throw out a very junior person's resume if they were extremely politically active on either side just because I tend to think that young people who are too involved in politics tend to be annoying. For example hiring someone who has been an active republican since age 11 would not be a smart move.
I didn't mean to misrepresent with the hypothetical, I'm not a Kosh Employee. I just wanted to scope the whole situation out. I'm not trolling, but I am ignorant. Thanks for the replies.
There's a whole lot more to this, but I'm just taking this opportunity to rag on HR again :)
Yeah, I think the same rules apply though. I love this country, but the truth is the overwhelming majority of Americans don't know the ACLU from the ACLJ. You're fine unless you run into the small minority--like me--who are like encyclopedias about all things political, past and present.
Ok, and kudos to knowing what is what VT4E, I see it as a good thing.
It doesn't matter. People, specially smart people is very relaxed about that kind of stuff. .
No one cares. There are a lot of liberal people on Wall St. (including plenty of Jews). Not trying to be a hater, but that's a fact. Just don't be obnoxious.
I would say my office which is a large macro fund is 50/50 liberal/conservative and the general attitude is very cynical toward politicians at all...ie I get less flack for my brand of libertarian political nihlism then somebody would for being a genuine supporter of Obama or Romney. I think the sell-side is also 50/50-ish but people tend to be quieter and less sarcastic about the whole topic because the environment in so corporate. And yes its true any profession that has alot of jewish peope is going to have alot of Democrats since 80%ish of jews vote democrat.
Yeah Be aware that you're paid to work not to hold political meetings at the office. Be a professional, keep that kind of opinions to yourself.
claim indifference. The workplace is no place to talk politics, unless your the boss
Bondarb, the Koch Bros. were not a household name until February 2011 as a result of the Wisconsin union laws. I challenge you to google them and check out the search results. You'll find very little on them prior to 2011. 2011 search results go on for dozens upon dozens of pages. Heck, you have to type in 2010 to even find 2010 search results, and half of them are 2011 news articles and the actual 2010 results are from very far left organizations. Unless you're a liberal activist you probably hadn't heard of the Koch bros prior to 2011, which is exactly the point I was making--only a real activist would know anything significant about stuff like that.
In terms of working for Soros, I'm talking about his political organizations, such as MoveOn.org. If I saw that on someone's resume I would absolutely trash his resume, in the same way that my first boss out of college would have trashed mine if I put "Policy Analyst, Christian Coalition". The point I was making was that that the OP is fine unless he runs into the handful of people who really care.
I would definitely discriminate against anyone who puts College ______ on their resume. Anyone who thinks that either of the two parties exhibits sound judgment or problem solving skills is mentally handicapped and I would have no desire to add such an attitude to a working environment that can already be stressful enough.
C'mon V4T, anybody who is the least bit interested in finance or business in the broader sense has known who the Koch brothers are for a long time. I had no inkling of their political inclinations until a couple year's ago but you have to live under a rock never to have heard of Koch Industries, even before 2010. Your Google search method is completely ridiculous btw, as recent and more popular hits are likely to be weighted higher.
Just like you I had no idea about their political inclinations. And why would I have heard of them? I'm a 20-something from the Mid-Atlantic region. Have you heard of Tom Davis? Have you heard of Jeanne-Marie Devolites? How about Douglas Wilder? How about Korb Maxwell? If not then you are a political rube. I've got news for you--the world doesn't revolve around your knowledge, nor does it revolve around mine. The vast majority of Americans haven't even heard of Rick Santorum. Why would the typical American--even businessman--know anything about the Koch Brothers?
Yeah, Google search popular search terms comes up for the Koch Bros. overwhelmingly in 2011 because they weren't a household political name until 2011. This is why you have to go back dozens--maybe even hundreds--of pages on Google to find pre-2011 articles written on them, and those articles are only from far left-wing organizations who consider the Koch Bros. boogeymen. The Koch bros absolutely weren't household names in the GOP.
This being a finance forum, and American finance revolving around New York, I would expect most people on here to know who the Koch brothers are. I honestly could care less what their politics are and not being particularly politically involved, I haven't the faintest idea who those people you mentioned are.
Case in point.
This might surprise you, but finance happens all over the nation.
I'm well aware, but this being Wall Street Oasis, I would assume most users here know of the people at the top of the Forbes list who live in NYC. Anyhow, that's besides the point, I think having experience at Koch Industries is nothing to spit on considering the size and importance of the company, regardless of one's politics.
Yeah, there definitely are such things as political and religious discrimination, and if the interviewer thought you are too liberal/too conservative for his/her tastes, you would be deemed "not a fit".
Generally, smart people tend to be more tolerant of other political affiliations, and less tolerant of stupid logic/inaccuracies.
Don't bring up politics, religion, or sex in an interview, and if the interviewer brings it up move on to a different subject asap, even if it seems the interviewer has same views as you - he/she may be baiting you.
A good answer to "what do you think about rick perry's newest video" would be "I think it would shift the demographics of his supporter base", and not "I don't want to answer that", "He is a stupid douchebag", or "He is a strong christian man standing up for his beliefs"
Exactly. Think how big an advantage that gives you. Those people are the ones who will start bitching about how much it sucks the first time they're stuck in the office at 3AM.
I feel like these troll posts are getting more insane by the day.
Respectfully, I have to disagree with the OPs post. I'll give any candidate the benefit of the doubt in an interview. If you have a solid resume, regardless of which school it came from (sometimes even GPA) I'll give you a call. Despite my open mindedness, I've noticed (though not an absolute trend) the majority of "target students" I interview for entry level positions I find to be of a different caliber (ie. more detail oriented, knowledgable of IB, and professional) than comparable graduates from non-target institutions.
To state the obvious, the reason WHY these institutions are considered "target schools," is because big banks GENERALLY find the caliber of students that graduate from these institutions are a better fit for banking. ...Also partially because banks don't have the time to search for the "diamonds in the rough" or "sob stories" at non-target institutions across the nation.
I also hate the, "Oh well it's based off of some made up prestige!" excuse. "Target Institutions" are almost always changing... they're not exactly the same institutions decade over decade. Back in the 80's banks never recruited from USC because it was a shit school, on the flip side I heard that UC Riverside had a killer accounting department in the 80's and sent graduates to WallStreet.
It's wherever the best students are coming from, and over the past 20 years it's been a select 10-15 institutions across the states.
Is it still relatively possible for someone from a non-target to get an intership/job offer with an appropriate gpa and good resume with leadership positions, etc. even if they are non-minority?
Jesus why are you so bitter? I've seen your post history, you constantly whine about target students. You didn't miss out on the IB internship because you were a nontarget; you missed out because no one likes your attitude and would want to spend any significant amount of time near you. Please get off this forum and stop spreading your BS
Earum et asperiores praesentium mollitia molestiae cupiditate voluptates. Autem qui placeat dolorum. Eius tempora dolores reiciendis illum voluptas ex ad eaque. Dolorum et ipsum corrupti quia nesciunt aut.
Ipsam est natus hic voluptas quasi est. Quo non assumenda earum similique. Voluptas vitae natus officiis excepturi. Velit repudiandae sunt incidunt similique nisi. Numquam ipsa voluptas mollitia non et quo. Nihil voluptatem nam recusandae cupiditate quia.
Dolorum molestiae id eligendi. Nemo nihil facere recusandae aliquam ipsa. Eligendi nobis eius sequi delectus. Dolorum saepe maiores aut dolore. Id et laborum sed aliquam quos.
Eum perferendis est harum ex. Ex possimus dignissimos dolor consequatur praesentium illo. Sint ad aut enim sit voluptatum architecto optio mollitia.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Molestias qui nulla sed odio. Laborum distinctio velit facilis beatae unde.
Doloremque suscipit qui quis a molestiae. Consequuntur dolorum optio aut ipsam autem. Ut deleniti nulla voluptas nam. Porro eos laborum laborum sequi quas qui. Accusamus expedita et sit beatae.
Provident eligendi ullam esse illum praesentium incidunt. Eos repellat itaque dolor consectetur blanditiis doloribus necessitatibus. Omnis ut ut eaque hic repudiandae maiores qui. Deleniti quia fugit recusandae officiis sapiente et fugiat. Nihil perferendis fugiat autem nam occaecati omnis.
Cumque quidem laboriosam quae voluptatum inventore. Cumque iure explicabo consequuntur. Sunt quaerat ducimus voluptas voluptatum aliquid aut expedita minima.
Et nesciunt modi totam dolores. Reiciendis rerum delectus cumque occaecati nihil accusantium dolorem. Incidunt ut modi eligendi quisquam ipsam blanditiis animi. Voluptatem sunt assumenda aut omnis.
Veritatis velit tempora reprehenderit et enim sed distinctio. Qui quisquam velit autem impedit dignissimos nihil. Vero reiciendis beatae qui tempore tempora. Corrupti officia animi quibusdam alias et inventore.
Commodi placeat suscipit ex repellat sint. Omnis et et quisquam sit sunt. Autem sed et nihil id aut consequatur. Cum delectus dolores et occaecati sit voluptas. Molestiae ut eos ipsum voluptas expedita et natus.
Libero autem rerum ut quia ea. Aspernatur fugit suscipit corporis veritatis sit ad molestiae. Temporibus harum quo vero.