Is the homosexual minority given preference in hiring

why not? still make up only a few spots anyway

It still seems like a field controlled by old money (white, male, and jewish or WASP). Why would these people by their own free will prefer people that are the opposite?

who says the minorities are not from old money?

Well, slavery was made illegal in 1865. Discrimination persisted for quite a while afer. So it is nearly impossible for African Americans to be from old money.

Omega - I really hope you get all of these questions out of your system before your SA stint. I'd love to see you ask these questions to a group of people in person and see their reaction. This goes right along with your "Should I wear my diamond encrusted rolex to interviews."

Lol. Point taken.

These are all legit questions (except for Monty's) but the one issue you haven't touched upon is the fact that too many rich people are hippy liberal Dems who would like to save the world. People should be hired based upon their credentials and experience. F affirmative action in the workplace...It's racism to give preference to any group and goes against everything this country was built upon

I am just a bit annoyed that the only sophomores with incredible internships at Stanford are minorities/female - many programs will not even consider people that are not.

I'm not saying it's not a legitimate question, I'm just saying it's usually only asked by those who can hide behind their computer screens. I'm not going to get into whether AA is a good / bad thing. You can't argue that it doesn't give some minorities a better chance to do things than they might have had otherwise. Clearly the system can be abused and unfairly puts deserving non-minorities at a disadvantage, although I've yet to hear of system that would be 'more perfect.'

Also to Omega, I'm really not trying to be a dick, I just want you to be aware of the old-money white snobbery stereotype that comes w/ being from Harvard. I've honestly heard kids from Harvard ask these sorts of questions at closing dinners and other social events, only to be shocked and embarrassed as people gawked and choked back drinks in response. Not that these aren't intriguing questions, but you're really going to have to work hard to not fit into the Harvard douchebag mold. Obvioulsy this is a broad generalization and Harvard's a great school that produces great bankers, just want you to be aware (at least more aware than the kids I know who failed to land FT offers b/c of their lack of social "graces").

I now attend Stanford. But, I certainly understand what you are saying.

Cool - I'd love to hear your thoughts on the differences b/w Harvard and Stanford both in terms of culture and academic styles. There's not many kids in the world who are lucky enough (no that you weren't deserving) to attend both of these great schools.

I'm off my soapbox now, debate away.

To answer the OP's first question - yes, it does come down to a matter of legality.

While there are no hard and fast rules or requirements, the EEOC will go after companies that it believes aren't hiring their fair share of diversity.

Ok, so there are a lot of hires who are minorities, and you assume that they get hired because they are minorities. I would only make that assumption for SEO kids, and not those hired outside SEO. Do you have difficulty accepting that those kids got an internship and you didn't, because they are actually better and smarter than you?

My input: I go to a target and most of the sophomore interns at BB's are minorities - African American or Hispanic, and none are econ/business/math related majors. It just happens, deal with it, you obviously got into a great school while playing against AA, there's no reason to worry about it. I think its just to make the field seem more diverse - helps recruit brighter people in general.

"Do you have difficulty accepting that those kids got an internship and you didn't, because they are actually better and smarter than you?"

No. There are several kids here that are smarter than me, but they are not the ones with the best internships. Some top groups at BBs have superdays just for sophomore minorities - this is what I am referring to. I have several solid internship offers from meritocratic firms, but the top BB groups won't even consider me or other white males for sophomore internships.

Also, do you think it is a coincidence that the 5 "smartest students" with the best soph internships at Stanford are all under-represented minorities, while having mediocre GPA/SAT?

Of course it's not fair omega. Just like it isn't fair that the majority of BB interns come from ivy leagues. I'm sure there are many people that are just as smart as those who get internships from hyp but don't have the hyp name to get their foot in the door. I'm certainly no dummy (1500+ SAT) but coming from UCLA, as a humanities major, I find it very difficult to even get a glance from BB's, despite the fact that I'm just as smart as many hyp kids who get interviews because of the name on their future diploma. It's a fact of life, am I thrilled about it? No, but life isn't fair...

You obviously don't know how it works in the real world. Firms will hold "diversity days" (such as GS's womens' summit), where they will give attendees a special "code". Basically, anyone who enters this "code" in their online app is guaranteed an interview.

Asians are not considered underrepresented minorities, despite that Asians make up 2% of the US population, whereas Blacks make up 13%... what a joke.

On the other hand, I was in a sophomore program at a BB and there were 2 Asian kids and the rest were white.

So there's some anecdotal evidence to go against yours.

I don't think you "get" what under-represented means.

yeah, it blows out the ass. I'm pretty sure if the minorities made it to the ivies they should be able to have a good resume if they work for it. It's not like the classes are curved by race, this system sucks.

"Equal opportunity" isn't whether Asians are underrepresented at top university/firms/etc. It's whether Asians are underrepresented in America's population. What "opportunity" does an Asian candidate have that a Black candidate does not?

Why is it that Asians make up such a large percentage of the body at top unis/firms? It's because they are smart and successful. So, what does this system promote? Encouraging Blacks and Latinos because they are less successful or reprimanding Asians because they are more so?

Think about it, killa.

No actually underrepresented means the numbers of a group in a school/university are low relative to their levels in the general population.

Maybe instead of affirmative action it's your lack of basic comprehension that's holding you back on. Keep on fighting that good fight though.

You're an idiot; my point is that Asians make up 2% of the US population, yet make up between 15-45% of top Unis and over a third at most elite professions, including banking and medicine.

Affirmative action was implemented as a indemnifying system to offer opportunities to people who start out with a late start because of past oppressions.

Blacks make up 13% of the US population yet struggle to make up even 7% in top unis, and I'm sure that that percentage is much lower in top professions.

What "opportunities" do Asians have that Blacks don't? None. Asians immigrated and worked under conditions as harsh as slavery, and the oppression under which Asians suffered continued centuries after the abolition of slavery. Yet, Asians were able to rise above these conditions and eventually obtain the success that is prevalent today. So, I ask again, what opportunities do Asians have that Blacks don't? Why do Blacks deserve this systematic boost, when Asians, comprising much less of the US population, were able to succeed with an even more stunted start?

In terms of what's "holding me back"; there's absolutely nothing holding me back. I'm sure you could only wish that you could accomplish half of what I have, but it's futile arguing with someone as dense and as ignorant as you, so I won't bother justifying that.

I think the point is that life isn't fair, quit your bitching. A minority will get an internship over you...you'll get one with your ivy degree over someone else. So what? If you want it you'll get it.

OK champ, my parents were immigrants too, to say any job nowadays is so off target it's ridiculous. Major Asian immigration into the United States started after the civil rights movement, so yeah I'm sure most experienced a "more stunted start".

Plus, there's centuries of social and economic discrimination that Asians haven't experienced.

And all of this coming from someone supposedly hurt by affirmative action!

You still did not rebuke his argument, instead focusing on the anal details of the debate. His general assertion is that the system of exclusively promoting underrepresented minorities in diversity recruiting programs discourages Asians and unfairly supports Blacks and Latinos. Whether his definition of URM is accurate or not is not the emphasis of this debate.

As for my personal opinion: I am a devout believer in meritocracy, but also realize that the basis of meritocracy is influenced by family backgrounds. With that said, race should not be the determinant of judging how much an individual is held back in society. Personally, I believe economic fortunes to be a bigger influence in determining a person's accumulated merits than race. (In the real world, many a wealthy kids fortunate to have wealthy and successful parents have the advantage of gaining, for example, work experience in the finance industry early on through family networks. Conversely, the child of a miner would not have access to these benefits.)

Race, although a factor, should not be a basis for diversity recruitment. It is not the fault of the Asians that they are, in their own right, one of, if not, the most successful ethnic group in the United States. The fact that Asians have the highest average income in the United States over all other ethnic groups is not simple happenstance. The Black populace certainly can attribute their generally low status in society to previous centuries of discrimination and slavery. However, note that Asians were not necessarily considered equal to whites during the genesis of their migration to the U.S. Every race can come up with excuses for their weaknesses. Regardless, there comes a time when racial promotion will become racial discrimination.

I agree with you about the high importance played on economics. Further, to me a meritocracy implies at least some kind of equal footing starting off. At what points do we say that the meritocracy is broken when kids who haven't even had a chance to demonstrate their ability are already at a disadvantage? Taken from the Teach For America website since I'm lazy: "Nine-year-olds growing up in low-income communities are already three grade levels behind their peers in high-income communities." and "And, because African-American and Latino/Hispanic children are three times as likely to grow up in a low-income area2, these disparities also prevent many children of color from truly having equal opportunities in life." It starts much earlier than a kid in a rich family getting the chance to work in finance, it goes to early eduction.

I'm all for a meritocracy, there are facts that show that often black and latino kids do not start off on the same footing.

Plus, check out this awesome post from b2: http://wallstreetoasis.com/forums/to-all-asian-bankers-and-bankers-to-be

Dude's a fucking joke

Everything you quoted lead back to the main source of reason for the poor conditions of the Black and Hispanic plight: economics. My point is that the low-income families tend to force their kids into a disadvantaged childhood. As previously stated, the child in a rich family getting a chance to work in finance through family networks is one example of many where children with advantageous pedigrees can exploit their upbringings. I certainly did not mention that early education is not another possible scenario of disadvantage for children raised in low-income families.

None of this, however, still justifies racial promotion. I believe that you took the statements iterated by Teach for America and blew it out of proportion. Yes, there is no denying that the statistics show that more Blacks and Hispanics are at a economic disadvantage. Teach for America (TFA) is referring to the fact that Blacks and Hispanics, who happen to commonly come from low-income families, are at a disadvantage. They are not advocating racial promotion, but are pointing out the statistical fact that people from low-income backgrounds, especially Blacks and Hispanics, generally start off their life at a severe disadvantage. With that said, there is a key difference between claiming that "Blacks and Hispanics start off their life at a severe disadvantage" and claiming that "people from low-income backgrounds start off their life at a severe disadvantage". The former makes a sweeping generalization and promotes illogical advocacy, while the latter points to the source of the problem.

As stated before, racial promotion is, in a way, racial discrimination. It is saying that two students given similar backgrounds (low-income family) are not equal because one is Black and should be helped through diversity recruiting while the other is Asian and should be denied special treatment. Whether there are 10 students of the former profile for every one student of the latter profile does not justify conscientiously lending a helping hand to the Black students and turning society's back to the impoverished Asian student. Although from a pragmatic standpoint, it may be that such recruiting policy is statistically targeting more students in need due to the fact that more URMs are from low-income households, it still does not weaken the argument that the Asian student is unduly facing injustice. Since equality is a matter of law, I would say that there is ample reason for that Asian student to right the injustice by advocating an end to racial promotion for a better alternative.

as a black kid, i've struggled to develop my views on the obvious preferences given to minorities. while i dominated the sat and will graduate magna cum laude, it is clear that much of my demographic fail to match those credentials. the econ student in me knows that affirmative action is a perverse and grossly unfair policy, creating a moral hazard problem where minorities don't have the incentive to compete and put forth 100% effort. HOWEVER, that same training says that it would be irrational and stupid for me to argue against it. therefore, i love al sharpton and jesse jackson.

seriously though, while a strict meritocracy is obviously ideal and should be the end game of any policy, it is difficult to put many minorities (namely the decendants of slaves) in a situation where they are clearly disadvantaged, and then later told to sink or swim. next time you see some ignorant black person on the street (i'm sure you see them often) ask yourselves objectively whether their kids have the same shot at landing a BB stint as a kid from New Canaan or Greenwich. i'm no liberal by any means, but i do think that the american dream only works if people have access to some basic level of opprotunity that I think is lacking for everyone. in leau of that, i think it is understandable to try and expand opprotunities for poor blacks and hispanics that make it as far as a good school, given that they were 1000000000x more likely to end up in jail than sitting next to you in class.

i wonder whether white people (and i have absolutely nothing against you all btw) know that they are supposed to dominate minorities in the classroom. black people were getting the shit kicked out of them less than 50 years ago for using the wrong water fountain. those arguments are like wondering why you've won a race when you've been given a head start over the other guy, and they've got one leg....

I think we can all agree - the real problem in banking is not the minorities or affirmative action, but instead the ugly women. I have not been very impressed with my superdays.

And as a disclaimer, my last post was a joke to try to lighten the mood a little bit in this thread. There seems to be some personal attacks going back and forth here which is not unusual but basically replicates the entire arguments for and against AA.

The minorities that tend to get into top ivys and the best internships by and large are not poor. My friends who are minorities (often only fractionally) and have these internships are quite wealthy and are not underprivileged whatsoever.

this is ridiculous - majoring in econ/math/bus not does not make u smarter. it does not mean you are better prepared to take on the job either.

Majoring in business absolutely means you are better prepared for a career in investment banking. You have a better understanding of financial markets, basic financial concepts, and have been working with valuations in your classes. It doesn't neccesarily make you smarter, but it does definitely make you better prepared to jump into IB.

when i have kids, i won't pay for their tuition if they decide to major in business at anyplace other than wharton. it is way to trade school-ish, and college is the time to be intellectually exposed to a ton of things that don't involve the time value of money.

I was just pointing out that most of the minorities in the BB summer programs are like cultural studies and political science majors, versus more difficult majors. Its just another thing to consider.

Exactly my point. The firm has to take an unwritten quota of Black students, so they select the most qualified black students. Which Blacks are these...? Not the descendents of previously oppressed slaves, but rich immigrants who have never been affected by previous injustices. Almost all of the minorities in my class at Exeter fell under this catergory.

Chinese immigrants were building the transcontinental railroad under conditions as deplorable as slavery during the same time period that Blacks were being oppressed. Further, prejudice sentiments against Asian immigrants were felt upto and following WWII (i.e. Japanese internment). Anybody who claims support for a meritocracy and promotes programs benefiting Blacks over Asians is clearly an ignoramus.

So, in summary:
Who does this system benefit? Rich Black kids who come from priviledged roots, never having been affected by previous oppressions against their race.
Who does this screw? Poor Asians whose ancestors have been previously oppressed and who now need to compete against a higher standard.

Anybody with any sense of logic would support a need-blind system over the flawed system currently in place.

And I don't need to be personally short-changed in order to recognize an unjust system and promote amendments. Asian get short-changed, simple as that.

Killermike is obviously a fucking retard who can't address the issues presented and instead skirts around with random bullshit.

Try again, dickfuck; major immigration occured on the west coast in the mid-1800s - 100 years before the Civil Rights Movement even started. Further, Civil Rights has always been concerned with Black minorities; Asians have always been overlooked.

two things..

1. blacks are still quite underrepresented at every elite school. as such, the only asians and whites that are adversely affected are a small number marginal candidates for whom it was a toss-up anyway. therefor, don't look to blame other people for your own inadequecies.

2. many would argue that black people face subliminal prejudices and injustices in today's society that transcend income and class. not my argument, but worth pointing out nonetheless.

In Response to the Above:

Some forms of Affirmative Action do indeed adversely affect other non-URM applicants! The most absurd (but true) example is that of the Univerity of Michigan's former admission standards. They used to use a 150-point admissions system. Any applicant who scored above a 100 was admitted. Now, for certain minority groups (eg. African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans), the committee would award an AUTOMATIC 20 points to their "score". To keep this in perspective, a perfect SAT score would only merit an applicant 12 points! Clearly this system would negatively impact the applicants who scored in the 90's but were rejected for minorities who would have scored in the 80's, had it not been for the Affirmative Action Boost.

While I agree that most admission selection processes are not this outrageous, the little "boost" that a URM might gain would still have an impact on other applicants.

As for the "subliminal prejudices" contention; you could apply that to a variety of different groups. For example, it is clear that Asians have their own negative stereotypes (Nerdy, Poor English, No EC involvement, etc); however many Asian applicants are able to overcome this.

Personally, my biggest issue with AA is the fact that it presumes that a Minority student must be socio-economically disadvantaged, an idea which simply is not true! Now yes, URM's are disproportionally the victims of poorer education/living conditions, however they should be given a boost based on their own unique struggles, not based on some racial generalization. Each applicant must be individually reviewed to determine whether they struggled with certain life cirsumstances, regardless of their race!

My 2 pence (as a black guy):

Selection based on race is racism, whether it's university admissions or job applications. If affirmative action were based on economic background, and could be shown to be viable and not widely manipulated, I MIGHT be able to support that. However the current state of affirmative action in the United States is totally unacceptable in my opinion.

I can only imagine working at a top IB in the US, where my white colleagues would likely wonder whether I had my spot on the trading desk because of the colour of my skin or because of my genuine ability. Indeed, if I am transferred to NY sometime in the future, I may wonder whether my black colleagues on the desk are there because of merit or colour. Even here in London I hear they have this SEO program now, but fortunately only a small fraction of the minorities on graduate recruitment programmes go that route. The vast majority of black people in banking over here seem to be hired because they beat the competition fair and square. European universities, too, rely on merit, not skin colour in admissions. Do I care that my top European uni had hardly any dark faces? I suppose it was a bit disappointing, but I was very pleased to know that every single one of my classmates was there because of merit -- more than I might be able to say for top American unis (as far as I know).

PS At times like this I'm very glad I'm not white, or else what I'm saying might be considered racist. Maybe it still will be considered racist by a few bleeding hearts reading this, who knows -- but it's the truth.

I'm hispanic and i agree 110% with this post. It makes me SICK to my stomach how a good chunk of SEO kid's who are indeed black or spanish..come from Ivy League schools. If you grew up in a nice neighborhood....went to great schools all your life...and you actually had a father/an intact family....why the fuck...should you get preferential treatment. The AA should go to the kid....(white/black/spanish...whatever) who's family is on welfare...who is working 40 hours a week to maintain himself....and genuinely doesn't have the opportunities to succeed without AA.

Every year, heck make that every 4 months. The partners of PE firms are all mostly old white dudes, so while you may not get that amazing job for your sophmore summer, do not worry your life is not over dude.

Studies have actually shown that AA does not disadvantage whites, but other minority groups such as Asians and East Indians. Whites who would have gotten admitted will still get admitted even with AA. Marginal Asian/East Indian kids are the ones who are shortchanged.

My theory is that AA can survive in its present form because it benefits blacks, with the acquiescence of the majority whites. Blacks obviously benefit from the increased opportunities. Whites acquiesce in AA because AA offers a path to racial innocence and reconciliation without really compromising whites' own interests - they merely subdivide the minority portion of the pie in different proportions.

It's an open question which is cause, and which is effect. Do blacks suffer prejudice because of their performance, or do their performance suffer because of prejudice? My view is that it's probably both, which results in a self-reinforcing vicious cycle.

In any case, it is clear that almost all racial, religious and sexual minority groups have suffered serious injustice in the past, unless you are a WASP. I know that slavery is a festering wound among blacks, but can anyone in good conscience assert that slavery is a graver injustice than the Holocaust (six million Jews murdered, with centuries of persecution before that) or the indentured Chinese American goldmine laborers?

"I know that slavery is a festering wound among blacks, but can anyone in good conscience assert that slavery is a graver injustice than the Holocaust (six million Jews murdered, with centuries of persecution before that) or the indentured Chinese American goldmine laborers?"

Are you kidding me? Something like 100 million blacks were killed in the slave trade. Not sure about the Chinese Americans but there is little comparison between the deathcount of black slavery vs the Nazi Holocaust (in which Jews were certainly not the only ones targeted).

But can you weigh human lives in an arithmetic manner like what you did? There are less Jews to begin with, and six million represents 70% of European Jews at that time. If Jews and Asians were not slave owners, why should they bear the weight of affirmative action?

To answer your last question, I don't support race-based affirmative action anyway. So I agree with you on that.

But regarding your comparison of jews, gypsies and physically and mentally disabled (among others) during the second world war, to blacks during the entire era of slavery, I don't think we are going to agree.

i also want to point out that there may be a profit-driven incentive to recruit a workforce that reflects the perspectives and demographics of the wider society. at the end of the day, these are private firms so ultimately they should be able to employ whatever hiring practices they damn well please.

in a perfect world, there would be no anti-discrimination law, and the invisible hand would punish idiots for hiring on the basis of racism, sexism, etc. as opposed to ability alone. however, i do think that centuries of discrimination has impacted today's distribution of intellectual and material wealth, and not everyone has a decent shot at success. i would love to see us do away with government schools, give inner city kids vouchers to go to private schools, and really give everyone a chance to move beyond today's system. barring that kind of radical change, however, i do think AA is at least plausible. ultimately, if you think AA is such a misguided, wrongheaded policy, rest assured that market forces will punish firms for practicing it, and a nash equilibrium will be found at a strict meritocracy. thus far, however, i don't think we are seeing that....

ok, i'm done. this thread is getting a little to detached from the purpose of this message board. i feel like a dirty sociology major right about now.