There's a lot being written lately about the bamboo ceiling - the glass ceiling for Asians. Basically, the theory claims that there are lots of overachieving Asians in the educational arena, but very few of them make it to management positions.
What's your take on this? Have you seen this happen where you work? Is it the result of cultural differences or just plain discrimination?
| +168 | The "Not So Obvious" things that get you a return offer? | 20 | 2h | |
| +103 | Is my life over after not getting GS? | 25 | 54m | |
| +65 | Best IB group on the Street | 27 | 3h | |
| +56 | BIG FOUR ARE PARADISE | 15 | 4h | |
| +49 | Thoughts and tips on how to speak like an investment banker. | 25 | 4h | |
| +45 | Tell me one good reason why Jefferies isn’t going to be a top bank in the next 5 years | 22 | 6h | |
| +36 | UBS Outlook | 28 | 1d | |
| +35 | Georgetown Placement for 2024 and 2025 | 21 | 6d | |
| +34 | How to deal with egotistical team? | 6 | 3d | |
| +33 | Highest Paid Bankers in Toronto? | 51 | 2h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
edit
What about second/third-gen Asians who don't have any language barriers?
I suppose I am more interested in second/third-generation Asians as well. It's pretty obvious that there are significant barriers for international Asians. But what about well-integrated Asians? Are they still discriminated against when it comes to headhunters, promotions, etc?
Interesting.... never thought about this.
I am Chinese and can write a breadth of material on the concept of the Bamboo Ceiling. But I won't digress and can describe at least a very real phenomenon in banking.
In my experience, the average North American BB IBD analyst class will consist of 30+% Asians. They exemplify the traditional characteristics bankers look for in analysts - hardworking, dedicated, high-tolerance levels and an ability to crank. However, I literally see Asians constitute less than 5% Associate-VP-ED-MD levels of banking. I also barely see any Asians at partner-track positions at PEs... It is a shame because a lot of my Asian friends are brilliant but simply cannot develop the critical sales and people skills it takes in navigating organizations.
There are a lot of nuances in managing people / relationships so if you are Asian, I highly advise that you work on your confidence and polish.
minority programs/bamboo ceilings (Originally Posted: 03/01/2007)
I know SEO is out there, but I would like to avoid it simply because of all the negative stigma about how "oh yea it's affirmative action blah blah."
I was wondering if there was a program that linked minorities already in bulge brackets (as in, an SEO type program that didn't actually place you).
The reason for this is because I am asian and honestly I still believe that there are bamboo ceilings and all this other crap I have to deal with. A lot of firms, especially elite ib boutiques such as Greenhill or Perella, or places like KKR, I hear still have that WASPy nature, and if you don't fit into the mold then you don't get promoted.
I understand corp-fin is the most WASPy of them all, which is why some of my minority friends are going into S&T since they know numbers can't lie. I don't want to be the stereotypical number crunching analyst who is "good at math" but with "bad social skills." That's complete bullshit. If they don't give me deals how the hell am I going to advance up.
Oh yea, a lot of people are going to say, "Wall Street has become a lot more accomodating... look at XXX he's a minority CEO blah blah," well, that's still not the case for 99% for the people out there. A lot of places still hold that elitist WASP attitude.
So enough ranting. I just want your thoughts on this stereotype, and whether or not there are things like SEO. I really like the goals of SEO, except for the fact that it actually places you into a bank, thus the quality of interns are generally lower.
I'm not sure about the answer to your question. But I wanted to note that you can interview for both SEO and the banks on your own and then accept an offer at the bank of your choice while also enrolling in SEO. As far as networking goes, SEO is pretty incredible. I myself interviewed at the banks and SEO concurrently and ended up receiving 4 BB IBD offers and SEO Corp Fin as well. I chose a tier 1 BB IBD offer and chose to accept the SEO offer as well for the networking opportunities. If people choose to demean my creditentials solely for participating in SEO then so be it. I'm satisfied with personally knowing that I have gotten top test scores, gone to the best schools in the country, and have had success in other endeavours due to my own hard work and help from those around me.
This negative thinking is probably is what is going to cause you not to get promoted, but of course, you will its your race.
Good luck with MBA admissions.
I'm (South) Asian. No ceiling whatsoever in I-banking. Several partners at Greenhill, Blackstone, Evercore are Asian, and promotions as I see them have no distinction.
You have to play the social game though, and that's often quite WASPY.
OMG, playing the game "networking, building clients relationships, making friends, etc, is WASPY?
lmao
Anyone who fails to realize or admit that Wall Street is WASPY is ignorant.
"OMG, playing the game "networking, building clients relationships, making friends, etc, is WASPY?
lmao"
Not that, idiot. But sailing in Connecticut, croquet at the partner's Hamptons House, drinks at the Metropolitan Club, living in the right UES coop. All waspy. All not unimportant to long term success.
Maybe you should invite them to do activities you find enjoyable, maybe study some math or play Warcraft?
lmao...that was too much hahaha
I invited Henry Kravis to play dice with me on the subway, he refused and claimed that gambling was banned on the subway. Pussy.
or better yet, maybe you can keep the generalizations to yourself because god knows your Maryland ass isn't going anywhere
why don't you trying getting an offer from seo before u start bashing it? u must be some hot shit since you so confident you dont even need to apply
why don't you trying getting an offer from seo before u start bashing it? u must be some hot shit since you so confident you dont even need to apply
dpa38... your post is a little naive, however the misperception you have about stereotypes in IB will be lifted as soon as you start working...
I'm asian and here's my attitude...whatever. If it exists, it exists. Why worry about those obstacles now, when you haven't even gotten your foot in the door? Your main concern should be to just get your foot in the door by any ethical means, then to work hard and prove yourself, and aim for the stars. People should notice the value you add and you will hopefully be promoted based on those qualities, and if there are obstacles, fu$# it...just another obstacle to overcome, or be defeated by. Life isn't always fair and particularly in this industry you will experience tons of bullshit on all levels. My personal aim? Professional excellence and hopefully my competence will get me to where I want to be. All that other squabble and politics I just don't care for. my 2c.
I didn't diss SEO, I dissed his attitude that the reason he won't get promoted is due to his race.
Good job devin, diss my school. Thats a good one. I can see your ability to interact with people is amazing and you should have no problem doing the "WASPy."
Yeah, that's what Joseph Jett thought. He did well for himself.
thank you, I'm glad someone can understand HUMOR
I know it's very WASPY, but what about all of the Jews?
Seriously, when I think ibank, I think joos.
When minorities make is an "us" versus "them" game with programs like SEO, that only perpetuates racism in this country. I argue that backlash from affirmative action programs is much more poisonous than people's orginial innate racism. Case in point, I'm not going to begrudge a minority any success in business, but the moment their minority status gives them an unfair advantage over me, I'm damn pissed about it. My uncle lost his 13 year job as a steelworker because the company had to give his job to a black woman, and you can be damn sure that he hates black people to this day, much moreso than he ever did before. I never once heard the "N" word out of his mouth, in fact, until that happened.
I agree with you pool that AA programs do more harm than good. However these programs exsist and are currenly legal, so even though some minorities may not receieve AA benefits, most of the time this will be assumed by their superiors and coworkers so because of that minorities should pursue these opportunities and I would not look down on them for doing so. The AA problem wasn't created by minorites but was created by whites.
However thinking that you won't get ahead because you are not a WASP seems like a sure-fire way to apply to b-school.
Fuck minority programs and get a job the real way based on your merits, you weak fuck.
to the OP, look up Ashok Varadhan.
seriously, unless you want to be mediocre, you need to grow up and just perform. the ranks will come with respect.
and yea, when i think wall street, i think of cohen, bernstein, goldman, siegel, (generic jew name)...
NoTears you're an idiot. Learn to read you dumb shit. OP isn't saying he wants placement into industry, just more networking opportunities. There can be AA programs for people who have are already BB bankers, not dumb shits like you.
Regardless of what a person may think of the quality of SEO or "diversity" candidates (yes, our headhunters actually use that term when they refer some minority candidates to us), why would you forego an avenue to the job? If you're as good as you hope, we'll forget all about the route you took into the firm. If you're not, it will catch up with you, sooner or later.
As for the WASPY-ness of a bulge bracket bank, let me tell you this: try being the staffer when a government information-restricted deal (like a Defense deal) comes up. The biggest pain in my ass is trying to round up a team of US citizens and PRs to staff up the deal team (if I don't, the bank goes into waiver purgatory, filling out memos and forms for the foreigners on the deal team for every damn piece of info we receive from the client).
Invariably, the group head looks at me and says "Can you do this? You've got crazy security clearance right?" Anybody that thinks bulge bracket banks are waspy hasn't looked at my roster lately.
I went through SEO and I'm very proud to have done so. All of those saying SEO perpetuates racism and that it holds 'terrible stigma' - give me a break.
After interviews with a BB firm they took me out to eat at a pretty swank restaurant and after 1 hour of casual talk about everything and anything (not related to ibanking) the Exec Director said, "I'd love to have somebody like you in my group" and proceeded to use his black berry. After I received an offer from that firm I sent him an e-mail explaining the good news and he responded, "Yea, I already knew you had an offer I was chatting with the guys that interviewed you through my berry." I guess SEO didn't hinder me so much.
If SEO was such a horrible thing and the quality of interns sucked, banks would eventually stop participating because it wouldn't be in their best interest - like some that don't. I received more than one offer from BBs and my friend, also in SEO, received offers from Morgan, Merril, Lehman, and CS.
So to the dude inquiring, SEO is a bad ass program that is very competitive + gives you more network and more training than any regular internship. I have contacts with bankers and head hunters all over thanks to SEO. The other day I received an e-mail from an associate I met at JPM that they were relocating him to South Africa. If you're a minority - take advantage of SEO and apply.
It's in their best interests legally and public relations/image-wise. That's abuot it.
seo is great for opportunities and networking, but don't discount what patek said. even if all the minority interns that they hire wash out after their analysts stints, they get the benefit for putting diversity in the pipeline and the PUSH/Rainbow Networks of the world aren't on their ass.
looking at my summer class, of the interns who didn't get offers, a disproportionately large amount were SEO. so about 70% of interns got offers. We had 70 non-SEO and 30 SEO interns. Of the 30 who didn't get offers, it was split about evenly between the SEO and non-SEO interns.
i don't want to generalize, but if this pattern plays out at other banks, the average caliber of an SEO intern may be lower. even if the average is the same, the distribution is probably more broad with larger standard deviations.
this just bears out pateks point that it isn't efficient for banks to hire through these programs vs. traditional on-campus recruiting, so there must be other agendas.
I agree with the general sentiment that SEO is a terrible program that puts underqualified people into banks. If you are as good as others, then why would you need to resort to SEO? You can dismiss it as 'networking' and 'training' but in reality I KNOW YOU KNOW that you applied because it was a foot in the door. To deny that would be straight up lying. On the other hand, I do recognize that there is a racial discrepancy without the program, but this is clearly not a good way to deal with it. Having less qualified minorities in jobs makes it harder for the more qualified minorities who didn't go through SEO to get those positions, which perpetuates the minorities are underqualified stereotype because those that get in are indeed underqualified. And no, I'm not white.
Never really thought it made sense for minority students are target schools to try and get in from SEO, since they already have the resources to try and get in IB.
For minority students at non-targets it makes a lot more sense. If you look at the enrollment at lots of these target, minorities (excluding Asians, we really don't count for the most part), make up appr 20% of the student population. So it still makes sense to some degree to help certain minority groups to get into certain professions.
There is a reason why there are less resources for non-target schools. To argue that a minority from a non-target DESERVES some kind of aid is ridiculous - it makes much more logical sense to be helping those people that tried their asses off to get into a target and then tried their asses off to get into bb. Why would it be the other way around? Help those that are underqualified and didn't care enough/weren't good enough to make it...that's smart. People should prove themselves on their own. If you're hot shit, you'll make it into bb regardless of racial biases. If you're mediocre and because of that you didn't make it over someone of the same skill that's white, then that's your fault for not being better.
But it makes sense to look for the qualified people outside of target schools. Not saying that everyone who gets into SEO is qualified, but I figure that is the goal of the program. People should make it on their own, but the fact of life is that people start at different points in the race, and the ones who are closer to the finish line have an advantage. There are others who can run just as fast but started further back, so didn't get as far as the others.
Besides, who can argue that at the undergrad level most elite ivies have a bit of underrepresentation of minority students (again, non-Asian).
How does it make any sense to say that minorities EXCLUDING asians should be offered an advantage because they started further from the finish line? Asians started at the same line as everybody else and look at where they made it. If you are a minority and didn't make it thus far then that's your race's fault, not white, asian, or any other non-minorities excluding asian's faults. If you actually were so poor that you couldn't afford to go to school or couldn't buy a book, then yeah, maybe you deserve another chance. If you grew up in a disadvantaged neighborhood and you blame that on what caused you to do poorly, then that is bad reasoning - you made the choice not to be motivated, you made the choice to suck.
Sure, it makes sense to look for qualified people outside of target schools, and people do. The fact is, they just don't hire as many from non-target schools. Why? Because by design these non-targets have less qualified people, and those who are qualified are going to be hired to the more limited positions. In any case, since minorities are already given an edge in order to get to college in the first place, then how are people starting at different lines? Are you telling me that bulges look at high school grades? No. If you were given the chance and you still didn't make it, whose fault is it now?
Besides, who can argue that at the undergrad level most elite ivies have been forced to accept underqualified minority students (again, non-Asian).
i agree with monkeynumber7. if you just look at the successful minorities who came from underpriviledged backgrounds, a lot of them got to where they are through hard work and by being able to overcome situations...also, i never bought into the whole not being able to afford a good school, since most ivys and top tier universities offer amazing financial aid packages to those that need it...i knew kids at my school (one of the top universities) that paid nothing to go to school and had other scholarships cover living expenses. And if thats not enough, there are plenty of loans available.
monkeynumber7, your claim that those who are at target schools are those who worked there asses off and therefore those should be the minorities that get helped the most is ludicrous. There are much more smart people at non target schools than target schools due to sheer number. The University of Flordia for example has about the same number of national merit scholars as Harvard.
Those "national merit scholars" at UF are made by the school (i.e. they are really just finalists given money by the school to make them NMS)
uhh...there are much more smart people at non-targets than targets...yeah that makes sense
and to argue University of Florida is as good as Harvard? are you retarded? or just plain fucking stupid?
btw, my argument this whole time has been there should not be ANY minority programs
Did I argue Univ of Florida was a good as Harvard? I'm saying that there are many bright people at Florida and at least test score wise, are on par with Harvard. Its just that Flordia has a shitload of 1200 SAT people bringing their numbers down, but they still have plenty of Harvard-intelligence level people. Many get into Ivies but don't go due to costs and other factors. So yes there are more smart people at non target schools than target schools. I'm taking in the aggregate, not on a per capita basis where obviously target schools are better.
This is incorrect. See above.
Also, here's UF's b-school: http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/undergraduate/06profiles/florida1…
"Range (Middle 80%) From 1210 to 1380"
Which implies only 10% at UF's b-school score above a 1380.
I know a black dude that came from a state school, and went through SEO-now at Blackstone. I know two other black guys that went through SEO, now one is at Bridgewater and the other is at some HF in Texas, i think. So although I concede to the argument that some of the SEO interns are not as qualified as other interns on the street, I would argue that the MOST talented SEO interns(from non ivies-Michigan, Texas) are more desirable than a lot of the top ivy grads because they don't have that same sense of entitlement, they tend to be more socially adept, and they tend to be really hard-working(because they know that they have to do much more to get the same recognition).
poppin
Here is an 2004 school ranking in terms of national merit scholars.
Texas had more than Yale, Florida had more than Stanford/Chicago/Princeton/Columbia/Upenn/etc.
http://news.ufl.edu/2004/01/20/nationalmerit04/
Harvard's Undergrad student body: 6,684 I expect UT at least 5 times as many students, if not way more.
In addition, Texas and Florida give National Merit Scholarships. Ivy League schools do not. You have to receive them from an outside source (ie. employer, foundation, limited number of actual national merit scholars non-school sponsored.) It would be much more interesting to look at the number of semi-finalists or even individuals with the credentials to be semi-finalists.
[quote=sleepyguyb]poppin
Here is an 2004 school ranking in terms of national merit scholars.
Texas had more than Yale, Florida had more than Stanford/Chicago/Princeton/Columbia/Upenn/etc.
http://news.ufl.edu/2004/01/20/nationalmerit04/[/quote]
The reason Florida is so high up on the list for national merits is because it gives full rides to all national merit scholars.
pwmtoIB, your argument seems correct.
To be frank, given such an attititude--regardless of qualification-- OP would probably not get into the program (given that notifications have already been sent, he may just be a reject).
This topic arises with frequency, and the polarities are consistent. For those that argue AGAINST AA programs, keep in mind that civil rights came about ONLY 42 years ago, in the 1960s. Prior to that those groups that presently benefit from AA were oppressed. While those who benefit from programs such as SEO were not around--for many-- their parents grew up during this time.
Said parents were unable to hold high-level positions/build wealth/attend top schools.
In general there are few corporate america "role models" that non-white children can identify with. Programs such as SEO and others attempt to mitigate such damages caused by past policy.
Brown v Board of Ed- 1954. Prior to this, "seperate but equal" was the rule of the land.
gka, I would tend to believe the big state schools would have equal or more semi-finalists than the target schools, but of course I have no basis. I think my point stands, at least by using standardized tests as measurement, there are more smart kids in non-target schools than target schools.
coogikat1, two words: asians & jews.
You guys are dunces. The ones at state schools are made NMS winners BY the schools. They are only finalists, NOT actual winners (of which there are only 2500 a year). Thus UF's and UTexas' supposed scholars are not of the same caliber as the true scholars at top schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Merit
Of the 15,000 Finalists, about 8,200 receive Merit Scholarship awards. All Finalists are considered for one of the 2,500 National Merit $2,500 Scholarships, which are awarded on a state representational basis. NMSC's own funds support the majority of these awards but corporate sponsors help underwrite these awards with grants they provide to NMSC in lieu of paying administrative fees. About 1,100 Merit Scholarship awards are provided by corporate sponsors for Finalists who meet criteria specified by the sponsor. Most of these awards are for children of the sponsor's employees, for Finalists living in a particular geographic area, or for Finalists who have career plans the sponsor wishes to encourage. These two types of awards can be used at any regionally accredited college or university in the United States. There are also approximately 4,600 college-sponsored Merit Scholarship awards for Finalists who plan to attend a sponsor college. Finalists report to NMSC their first choice college ("College-Sponsored Merit Awards"). In addition, about 1,500 program participants who are below the Finalist level receive Special Scholarships provided by corporate sponsors.
There are kids of equal caliber of ivy-league students who one way or another did not have the means or opportunity to get into an Ivy league institution. I doubt anyone will say that undergraduate admissions is a level playing field, just look at all the $100+ an hour admissions consultants and $500+ SAT courses.
It doesn't hurt to have programs to pickout the qualified applicants from this pool to get into an industry they otherwise would have difficult getting into.
Not to say SEO doesn't screw up and accepts unqualified kids, but it's better to have a couple unqualified people in the program rather than shutting out an entire population of applicants.
Pretty funny stuff.
lol popping is just fucking people up. the point is, the people that go to SEO are BY DESIGN underqualified. If you got a job already, then you wouldn't go through SEO since you would like to place yourself wherever you want to. On the other hand, if you can't get a job and you need an edge, then clearly, you are less qualified than the people that could have made it on their own. Therefore, SEO = giving advantages to people who are less qualified. And yes, asians are minorities, and they are represented quite well in banking even without seo. Why do you think that is? If asians don't deserve an advantage, how should that be any different for other minorities? If you're a lazy bitch, you're a lazy bitch.
You are assuming that everyone at the target school "made it on their own". Clearly a lot of these students had advantages growing up, so you can't just assume they made it on their own and deserve whatever job they get. You are assuming that the college admissions process is a fair playing field, and I mentioned before, it clearly isn't, some people have an advantage.
Granted, asians tend to be an exception to the whole minority thing, but asians are also an exception in terms of historical place in US society.
"If you are a lazy bitch you're a lazy bitch" may be true, but not having the same resources and advantages in life that others may have had is also true.
You are wrong. I'd like to know where you're getting your information about SEO from. It seems like you're making generalizations without any knowledge whatsoever about the program. People who do the SEO program are not underqualified. I'm not sure what your definition of underqualified is, but the most SEO kids come from targets with >3.5 GPAs. Yes, there are kids from state schools and HBCUs, but they are still smart students and I don't think just because they didn't go to Harvard or Wharton they're "underqualified." Also, I know plenty of people who got their internship without the help of SEO, but still chose to do the program at the bank from which they recieved offers, because SEO is not just a "foot in the door." There are many other advantages to the program. Even if a student couldn't get the job on their own, I still wouldn't deem them unqualified. I'm sure there are plenty of smart people from target schools that don't get offers. Sometimes it just luck and numbers.
I think people are dancing around the reason programs like SEO exist. Btw, SEO was founded by a white man. The fact of the matter is, minorities are still discriminated against in this country, especially on Wall St, no matter how smart they are. When most white people see a black or hispanic person, all they see is skin color. I think it's a good thing that companies are now realizing diversity is important. And for all you people hating the program, don't hate the program, hate the banks that use them. Another fact, Goldman Sachs consistently hires the most SEO interns on Wall St every year.
P.S. I do realize that not all SEO interns are smart and cut out for the job. SEO is not perfect, nothing is. However there are also kids from Wharton and Harvard who are not smart and are not cut out for the job as well. No one ever complains about them.
Uhh, asians are an exception in terms of historical place in US society? Yeah, they had and have it worse. When was the last time you saw an asian guy with a white girl? When was the last time you saw a black guy with a white girl? Clearly, the social stigma of being asian is WORSE and is STILL worse. When was the last time you saw asian people bitching about politics? When was the last time you saw other minorities bitching about politics? What was the one of the only immigration laws ever passed in the united states that restricted a certain minority group from immigrating to the us? Aside from blacks, what minority groups were slaves or indentured servants (and yes, the answer is asian people)?
Talking about having the same resources, whose fault is it that you don't have the same resources. Why don't you include poor white people in minority programs? In fact, why don't they simply help poor people as opposed to minorities? Again as I said before, even disadvantaged people, unless they are THAT disadvantaged to the point where they can't afford going to high school or buy books, then sure, they are disadvantaged. Otherwise, it is YOUR choice to succeed. If you grew up in a "BAD" neighborhood, it's still your choice for being a fuckup. You have no idea who you're talking to about growing up disadvantaged.
And when did I say college admissions was a fair playing field? It clearly isn't - minorities are ALREADY given a push there. Why the hell do they need another push? If they got into a state school, a private school, and ivy, wherever, and they are not the top of their class and can't get a job on their own even still, that's their own fault. Even non-targets that have limited positions, if you're not good enough to get those limited positions, that's your fault.
Well, the asian demographic as a whole has shifted quite a bit since that era of history. Most of the asians you see in business/college are 1st/2nd generation with college-educated parents. There may be a social stigma with being asian, but you really can't say the majority of asians are disadvantaged in today's society, given their makeup in top schools and as a whole demographic.
Whose fault that you don't have the same resources? You can pinpoint much of the blame on history. Some demographics simply have had a very poor history in terms of having the same opportunities in the past 50 to 100 years. That you can't deny. Succeeding is a "choice", but a person is limited by the resources available to them. The primary and secondary school system in the US is so poor that it is extremely difficult to get into an elite ivy if you don't come from a good school district. You can point to all the help that minorities supposedly get in the college admissions process, but doesn't change that fact that only 20% of ivy enrollment is minority, and only 10% come from the bottom half of the socioeconomic ladder.
Bottomline, succeeding may be a "choice", but the available options are much different depending on background.
Uhh...and how did asian parents become college-educated when their time was also set in the same historical context as all the other minorities? Obvious answer - they tried and succeeded. When did I say asians are disadvantaged? I said they are NOT disadvantaged and that is BECAUSE they did well for THEMSELVES with NO HELP unlike everybody else has to bitch about. Who are the people who are known as the nerds and the studyholics? Asians. When it comes to interviews who has the social stigma working against them? Asians. When it comes to minority AND majority programs, who has the disadvantage? Asians. So who can you blame for minorities who aren't doing so well.
If you want to talk about school district, my school district isn't even ranked on top 250 school district and I got into an ivy and landed a sweet ass bb all on my own. How did that happen? Yeah, no shit, I tried my ass off.
And yeah, 20% of ivy enrollments are minority. That's already a high number considering that if you compared scores ONLY then way less than 20% would be in ivys now. Disadvantaged minorities...what a fucking joke.
Woops I just checked and my school is from a district ranked OUTSIDE of the top 500 IN THAT STATE. So, what was that again about coming from a bad school?
Ok, when I say 1st/2nd gen asians, they usually have parents who were educated abroad, and then immigrated to US and continued education. A bit different from the ones who came to SF in the 1800s. I'm not sure about the exact stats, but I'm fairly certain that the majority of asians are now of the 1st/2nd gen and fewer are the "built the railroads" gen.
Congrats to your success, but I'm willing to bet that you're the exception, not the rule. Don't forget, the civil rights movement in the US was in the 60s, that's less than 1 generation away from today. Heck, we even had government officials who were pro-segregation in Congress a couple years back.
I didn't know school districts were actually ranked, but given that there are over 16000 public school districts in the US, top 250 would seem to be the cream of the crop. I've seen schools in average districts were conditions were pretty pathetic, so I can't even imagine what a school district with no property tax base in the bottom 10000 would be like. Can't comment on your particular background, but there's no doubt that there are a lot of hurdles for people on the lower socioeconomic scale, and not just minorities, that have to be overcome to get to the same level that more advantaged people come from.
Lower than 500 in that state is not cream of the crop - if you consider all the states together, I'd say that would be well under the 5000 mark. And yeah, exception not the rule, but isn't that the whole point. If you aren't at the top, then how can you complain about not getting the opportunity.
Also, back in the 60s-80s, a college education from abroad got you nowhere, so if you are saying asians are advantaged because they had school before they arrived, that sounds pretty silly. That would be the same to say that if a person is born smarter, then other people should be given an advantage.
On the other hand, I agree that the civil rights movement in the US was in the 60s. But how can you argue that is different for Asians. Asians also went to segregated schools. Sure, a majority of the now Asians may have came later, I'm not completely sure, but even so, they are subjected to the same differential treatment that other minorities face now. The fact that a family's parents and grandparents were treated worse back in the day is no excuse for you now. And sure, there are a lot of hurdles for people who are poorer, that is without a doubt. But that also implies that these people are less qualified on an absolute scale than white people (no I'm not white). Why would you seek a lesser qualified individual just because they were disadvantaged when you could just pick the better one? If you imagine who's more useful to a business, the guy that got the elite education or the one who got the shitty one? That is, of course, a question of on average.
"Why would you seek a lesser qualified individual just because they were disadvantaged when you could just pick the better one? If you imagine who's more useful to a business, the guy that got the elite education or the one who got the shitty one? That is, of course, a question of on average."
That is precisely the point of AA and SEO. Because power and resources are concentrated in the hands of a relative few, it takes programs of AA and SEO to get other groups to the level where they can compete on a level playing field. It's not necessarily that a person lacks the ability to reach the top, it's that they lack the opportunity to reach the top. I doubt most people would consider being born to poor parents is their fault.
The point I was making about asians is that many of the parents of today's gen of asians did undergrad abroad and continued graduate education in the US. As there is a strong correlation between education and income, the also to some degree the culture of many asian countries, asians are viewed much differently from other minority groups, i.e. the "model minority" stereotype.
Personally, I wouldn't really group most asians with other minority groups, but that's just the way a lot of programs are set up.
My point is why would you take the bottom and HOPE they can do better? You can just take people from the top who have an advantage and spend your dollars making them better rather than wasting your money on the bottom.
And yeah, Asians are the model minority and that is exactly what I mean. Work hard and stop bitching - that's what people should do.
Besides, if you want to give the people who are disadvantaged a CHANCE, then you should not be giving it to people who are IN college - those are already NOT the bottom of the bunch. If you are trying to help those who are disadvantaged, you should be hiring for seo through mcdonalds.
SO would you say that the black guys at Bridgewater and Blackstone are underqualified?
I think the issue is as such: How many Asians live in an environment like lets say Harlem? Even those Asians whose parents tend to have dead end jobs, live in areas where they are at least given the academic opportunity to excel and don't have such large diversions. Schools that are predominantly black tend to have more students, students with worse grades, and less resources that schools with other minorities. I guess you could blame this on "the African Americans" as a group, but that's exactly the point. Why should those who are in this environment have to suffer for circumstances that have been essentially created by racial relations and other issues outside of their control. How many Asians come from broken families or single parent families? Once again, there's probably a large statistical disparity between Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans.
That's why SEO doesn't try to pick people at the bottom, they try to pick people that are qualified that otherwise would not be able to get into certain industries. Whether or not SEO succeeds at this goal is questionable, sometimes there are good candidates and sometimes there are bad ones. But not giving people a chance by focusing exclusively on the advantaged groups perpetuates a pretty vicious cycle: "If you're poor, you have to work 10 times harder than an upper-middle class person to 'deserve' the same thing." So even if you work twice as hard as the person who started out with an advantage, and you don't make it as far, who should get the opportunity, the person with an advantage or the person who had a disadvantage?
And no, asians are not exactly what you mean by "work hard and stop bitching." Many asians, especially those you see in the top schools, come from well-educated families, middle to upper-middle class, and better school districts. You can't really say the same for other minority groups, especially those who live in urban-decay centers and poor neighborhoods.
Fact of the matter is, many people in the US live in disadvantaged situations, and much of this can be attributed to historical and societal causes. People can either choose to blame the poor for being poor and let the cycle continue, or try to level the playing field now and let the next generation compete on equal terms.
or you can stop perpetuating the cycle, stop giving money to dumb people and let evolution work its way. And yeah, actually, those guys I would call underqualified if they got their job through seo...fucking dumb bitches couldn't do it on their own. Just because a company wants to hire for racial diversity and not have the government on their asses doesn't attest to some minority fuckup's intelligence.
wait, so are you saying those black guys at Bstone and Brightwater got their jobs bc the companies wanted to hire for racial diversity and not because they were competent?
I have a question. Why is that black frats and sororities have lower average GPA's than white frats and sororities everywhere????????? Look at any top school that has frats - Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Vanderbilt, Upenn, Northwestern and look at Greek office's list of GPA's and you will see for yourself. Now, if all those kids have already been given a chance to go to a top school and are not making the best of it, why should they be given a second chance? Why? Give me one reason! Why should a 3.7 white kid from Upenn not get an internship and a 3.1 black kid from Upenn get it? How is the black kid more disadvantaged? They took the same classes, had the same professors, used the same career services etc. But the black kid has better chances of landing an internship - if not through the regular channels, then through SEO. How is that fair? I am actually pro-AA based on income when it comes to college acceptances, because kids from crappy schools, do have a harder time preparing for SAT, taking AP exams etc. But once you are in college, all bets are over. If you cannot take advantage of one chance, then you don't deserve a second. Most people in this world, don't even get that one chance...
Blacks problems are self inflected. Seriously if asians were given half the hand outs blacks get the asians would be pwning moreso than they already are. It's not our fault that 70% of blacks are born out of wetlock and grow up in poverty. It't not our fault a third of them go t jail sometime in their life and its not our fault that learning and getting an education is "white" and that playing basketball is goal #1 in life.
Hispanics, for the most part unless they are a kid, dont even try to learn english and most are illegal, well 12-13 million of them at least.
Asians, there is no rational argument for asians needing help. Look at any top college at their % of asians and then look at the % asians make in America.
Using race as a proxy to decide who gets help into wall street is purely racist. There are so many whites/asian that do not have the resources to go to target schools yet get into them. Go to any state school and talk to kids in their "honors program" and you will find 99% of them got into an ivy or top 15 school yet couldn't go due to money reasons. I'm not talking poor people, I'm talking upper middle class where 40k a year is too much but the govt and schools don't consider them poor enough for aid.
Not that minorities seem to mind, but if I got a boost just for being white, that would offend the hell out of me.
But blame white liberals, not minorities.
I think this statement is half the problem. It's not your "fault", but affirmative action isn't trying to correct for fault. It's trying to correct for inequality of circumstances. It doesn't matter if a "race" inflicts poor circumstances upon itself (ie. black problems are self-inflicted); but rather, the statistics you quote exist and undermine the opportunities for individuals in these underrepresented minorities.
I'm sure that blacks chose to live the 100 years of their US history in slavery, then the next 100 years in segregation, discrimination, and Jim Crows laws.
I'm sure Hispanics chose to have the Southwest annexed by the US, or for Latin America to be dominated by US interests for the past 100 years.
No one is free of blame here, some problems were caused by society, some problems are caused by individuals. The only way to solve these problems, is for everyone to do their part. SEO and AA try to fix the societal and structural problems, and hopefully there are individuals who are willing to fix the individual problem. If you look at the caliber of SEO students, some of them may be "qualified" by banking standards, some may not. That's SEO's problem and they need to deal with that. But at the very least, these kids are trying, and have the ambition and desire to take a step up in society.
I'm not saying that SEO students aren't 'qualified' per se. I'm simply saying that they are LESS qualified than those that already got the positions on their own. I agree with most of the posts above that are saying why should THEY be getting the chance. If they have already been given the chance to get into a decent college and they STILL cannot take advantage of it, who is to say that they deserve another chance.
Sure, black people were put into slavery, segregated, etc. but so were Asians during that same time. As I said before, the social stigma of being Asian is still there and still higher than that for black people. That means, in today's world, without political discrimination (for the most part), then what matters especially when it comes to hiring practices, is social biases.
The fact that Hispanics were annexed by the US or Latin America dominated by US interests does not hurt those that are IN the US. But even if it did, how did US interests not fuck with Asian interests during those same periods. Check immigration laws, check trade barriers, check every political move aimed to be against Asia.
I'm not here to blame any race for any problem. I'm simply saying that SEO is not doing a good job because it is hiring those people who are advantaged already (already given the boost and got into college) but did not take advantage of that opportunity. Given the low offer rates for SEO, we can already see that those people are less qualified. Why should we continue with this when it is in reality a political ploy by companies to show that they encourage 'racial diversity.'
On a side note, helping those people who could not be hired to get into positions that they should not otherwise have is taking away the number of positions that are available for those who are more qualified, and this is perpetuated due to that handout resume builder that minorities are given.
Again, the asian demographic is not comparable to the black or hispanic demographic. The majority of asians came to the US in the past 30-40 years, in a very different political and social environment. Social stigma aside, asians today have the same if not better resources than the population median, and really for the most part don't need AA.
However, the history for blacks and hispanics are different. Economic and social oppression existed for succeeding generations for the past 200 years. I'm not saying necessarily that minority students at target schools should use SEO as a first/last resort, but since SEO recruits from lots of non-target schools that have larger porportions of minority students, that levels the playing field for the future.
Besides, "those that already got the positions on their own" really didn't "get it on their own." Let us not forget the expensive private/upper-middle class public schools, the SAT classes, college application consultants, and daddy networks that many of these people may have.
Fact of the matter is, AA is needed now to level the playing field, so AA will not be needed in the future.
If ya kick someone in the balls at the starting line of a 100 yard dash, then run to the finish line while dumping nails in the other guy's lane, you can't quite blame the other guy for not finishing the race. The fair thing to do is to get everyone at the starting line and then restart the race. Sure you can say that is was the other guy's fault and he shoulda wore a cup and hiking boots, who buys that story.
Equality is about giving everyone an equal opportunity, and right now that doesn't exist in America. While AA and SEO might tick off some people, and some qualified white applicants may be collateral damage during this process, but that's the consequences for past US history. If anything else, it makes more sense to expedite the AA process so that it will no longer be needed anymore.
I find it ridiculous that Hispanics are mentioned in the same sentence as African Americans. Though not a fan of AA, I believe only African Americans have any claim for a little leg-up (lets say AA should get them a job over an equally qualified non-African American candidate) as only African American slavery was institutionalized in the US for hundreds of years. Hispanics do not fit that criterion (I am half Hisp.), and they came here on their own accord. Sure, they may not be as well represented among the upper echelons of finance, but equality of opportunity is much different from equality of result, and we should not subsidize low-achievers of any background (black, white, Asian, Hispanic). Consider, for example, the Jews. Was it not barely a generation ago that they were nearly obliterated by genocidal massacre? Were there not sign on public pools and parks in the 1960's that read "No Blacks, Jews, or dogs"? Is not anti-semitism still alive today? Many of these Jewish immigrants came with not much more in material possessions than the clothes on their backs, but the work ethic and intellectual curiosity they brought with them propelled them to positions in law, finance, medicine, and public policy. This is much like the Asian argument, but if Hispanics are deserving of AA, are not the Jews? You argue that Jews are overrepresented in powerful positions, but did they not come from the same (if not worse) desolation? We should not subsidize cultural values that do not emphasize hard work and intellectual achievement. Those underrepresented minorities who possess a strong work ethic and curiosity will make their way to the top sans AA.
The Asian demographic is not different from the blacks and hispanics and it is only because you cannot explain the difference that you want to dismiss them as a population that can be used as a reference. There were Asian slaves and indentured servants - they were called coolies. There were political moves actions moved against Asians. The fact that Asians now are better represented in colleges and jobs and that they live in better communities is a consequence of their working hard instead of being lazy bitches and simply complaining about how their great grandparents were slaves.
And again, for people who are IN college, they didn't get in on their own - MINORITIES INCLUDED. That means that those minorities are already given an advantage, just like whites.
Let us not forget that if you are good enough, it doesn't matter whether you had the expensive public/private schools or some executive tutoring program. If you weren't, then you can just go work at McDonalds and have time work itself out. AA and SEO will NEVER work out the consequences of past US history, because if we use them now, they will never be gotten rid of because the racial discrimination that the US once had will always be a fact.
Besides, how can you equal the playing field if you are giving less qualified minorities the chance to get in and disallowing the more qualified minorities those same positions who don't want to do SEO? You are simply putting the fuckups in the front so that minorities will always be seen as inferior.
I am still waiting for you to answer my question. You say that all SEO people are less qualified than people that applied for the positions themselves. So are those guys that initially went through SEO, but are now at Bstone and Bridgewater, less qualified than everyone else that are in banking without SEO. I find it disturbing that you are so blinded that you can't possibly fathom someone getting offers from numerous banks, but going through SEO bc of the networking opportunities.
It may be just me, but I've never actually met an asian who had parentage extending back to that era. The majority of asians I know immigrated in the past 20-30 years, and grew up here. Very different from black or hispanic experience. It's simply not an apples-to-apples comparison. Point to the past legislation and history all you want, but the majority of the asian population today did not grow up under that environment.
Once again, my point is that there are qualified people who don't have the same opportunities to show that they are qualified, whether it was because of societal factors growing up, economic factors growing up, or racial bias.
And yes, it matters if you had expensive public/private schools and tutoring sessions. Just look at the enrollment stats at the elite universities.
Bottom line, it's better to try and even the playing now, than saying, sorry you got screwed, deal with it.
Yes it matters if you had expensive public/private schools and tutoring sessions if you weren't smart enough to get in in the first place. And yeah, many people who get into elite universities may have taken advantage of these. So what? If you're naturally good enough, then you are good enough. You can't even the playing field by sending minorities' worst - you do so by sending their best. What is the best way to do that? Yes folks, that's right, let the dumb people die off over time.
Why should you as a minority get special treatment just because your parents didn't work hard enough to make money? Sure, Asians may have came later, but that still means they had to work from bottom to top. They also have the same racial biases, societal factors, and economic factors working against them. How many of YOUR friends can you say were slaves? I can't imagine too many. To point to the fact that their parents were slaves is no excuse. They themselves chose to do worse. Simply because you grew up in the ghetto doesn't mean shit. Every race has their ghettos. And in each ghetto there are stars that make it out - why didn't the others? Yeah, no shit, because they chose that path.
Well, that's an advantage for people who could take advantage of those extra resources. How do you know they were naturally good enough? How do you know that some kid from the "ghetto" wouldn't have done equally well given the same opportunities? I seriously doubt that SEO tries to send the worst, they send the best candidates that they get. Even if SEO doesn't always accomplish that goal, that's their intent and in many cases they succeed in doing so.
Besides, you can't generalize that minorities are getting special treatment because their "parent's didn't work hard to make enough money." No one chooses to fail. If I kicked you in the balls before a 100 yard dash, is it your fault that you didn't finish the race? Would the white guy who was "qualified and got in on his own" be where he is today if he had grown up in the ghetto? The profile of the top schools doesn't lie, 90% of their enrollment come from the top 50% of the US population.
Finally, you really must not have read a thing I posted about the Asian population. The vast majority of today's Asians came in at the top. Well-educated, well-paid people who did not face the same types of discrimination other groups did. Seriously, ask the next Asian person you see at your school, I'm willing to bet that 9/10 are second gen asian (parents immigrated), 6/10 have parents who are either doctors, engineers, scientists, or professors, and grew up in a middle to upper-middle class neighborhood.
No, neither Bridgewater nor Blackstone participates in SEO. I believe these guys got into banking, but went through SEO, then graduated and accepted positions at these two places.
My parents were refugees from Vietnam and came here when they were ~17 with only the clothes on their backs. The only exposure to english they had were their Beetles albums. Both worked full time while going to school and now they both make 100k a year. I go to a top state school and am going to be a summer analyst at a BB through on campus recruiting. I assure you, they or I were not given handouts. Anyone has the ability to do what they did if they cared to work as hard.
What does it mean to be qualified to get into Blackstone and Bridgewater? Smarts is probably one, but a CRUCIAL part is experience, usually investment banking experience. If you had two guys one with UBS experience and one with boutique experience, who would get the jobs? On average, probably the UBS guy. SEO gives a handout to those people who would not otherwise have been in that position.
Sure, Blackstone and Bridgewater do not have any 'quotas' but do you really think they don't care at all about race of the people in their group? If the government saw that no minorities were hired they'd be fucked.
And sure, there are some people who got in through connections - I would say that that is also wrong. However, SEO does not help the people who worked hard and got the positions that they deserve and in fact, pulls many positions away from those who should have gotten the job only from their qualifications.
When blackstone was interviewing a group of their peers, many of whom got in through the traditional route (on-campus recruiting, etc.), they decided that this person was the best candidate and hired them. If Blackstone doesn't give a shit that they got in through SEO, why are you getting so worked up about this? Am I missing something?[/quote]
Wow, that's a pretty broad generalization, fella. SEO does not help the people who work hard, huh? While I am not part of SEO, I do know people that have gone through the program, and were successful in getting offers. You're saying SEO makes a specific effort to identify the laziest minorities and then shoves them into the BBs?I'm actually curious though.. Are you currently working at a BB where you've worked alongside people from SEO, or are you getting your arguments based on what you have heard from other people? The amount of effort you are putting into this argument, it definitely seems like someone associated with SEO killed your hamster or something..
"I KNOW that Asian people are better off. 6/10 have parents who are doctors, engineers, scientists, or professors, and grew up in a middle to upper-middle class neighborhood. Who did that for them? Nobody but the Asians themselves. Other minorities have had the exact same amount of time if not more to rise above their current status."
Dude, are you stupid or ignorant? Have you not read a single post I made? Look at the backgrounds of these Asians. They are second generation...a lot of them immigrated from China, Korea, India with degrees. Who did that for them? Their government and society. Just look at the educational and social systems of China, Korea, India for the past 30 years. These groups had a lot of resources and help to get to where they are today.
That's entire different from coming from generations of blacks/hispanics growing up in the US. They haven't had government helps and quality education systems to give them the same opportunities asians have. That is the whole point, that Asians and blacks/hispanics are not apple-to-apple comparisons.
Besides, your whole Blackstone argument makes no sense at all, in fact it contradicts your entire argument. Obv Blackstone only takes the top of top, the most qualified candidates. The fact that SEO alums were hired by Blackstone shows that they are qualified for the job. Did SEO help them get there? Yes. Would they have gotten to that position without SEO? Maybe not. But SEO gave them the opportunity to be in the position to prove themselves on equal terms. And on a level playing field, they obviously have done well.
And as a final note, I don't disagree that AA should focus more on socioeconomic status than ethnic background. However, a greater proportion of this country's poor are minorities, especially black, hispanic, and american indian. And these groups also suffered the most from past government policy specifically targeting them. The least the government can do, after dumping so much crap their way, is to help them get back on equal footing.
SEO does not give handouts. That term is really annoying me. In fact SEO interns work at least 10 times harder than other interns. The SEO program is very competitive with a 10% acceptance rates. The application requires multiple essays, recommendations and pressure intense interviews that are much tougher than firm interviews. Once accepted to the program, interns are required to complete numerous online training courses, with a week of in-house training before officially starting their internships. Also, they are required to attend events at other banks at least twice a week, requiring them to complete their tasks under more time constraints than the average intern. You are making SEO seem like they just go out into the streets, find every minority they seem and give them a job. I just want to inform you, because again it seems like you don't know anything about the program and are pulling generalizations out of your ass.
"Dude, are you stupid or ignorant? Have you not read a single post I made? Look at the backgrounds of these Asians. They are second generation...a lot of them immigrated from China, Korea, India with degrees. Who did that for them? Their government and society. Just look at the educational and social systems of China, Korea, India for the past 30 years. These groups had a lot of resources and help to get to where they are today."
The reason MOST asian people immigrate to the united states is because they had a shitty life back home. Clearly, you don't know enough asian people to be talking about the backgrounds of asian people that are here already. You want to tell me that the Chinese economy has been BETTER than that of the US? You want to tell me their government has given subsidies to education that are better than those offered in the US? Are you just retarded or plain dumb? The people who came here and did well for themselves on average started poor.
"Besides, your whole Blackstone argument makes no sense at all, in fact it contradicts your entire argument. Obv Blackstone only takes the top of top, the most qualified candidates. The fact that SEO alums were hired by Blackstone shows that they are qualified for the job. Did SEO help them get there? Yes. Would they have gotten to that position without SEO? Maybe not. But SEO gave them the opportunity to be in the position to prove themselves on equal terms. And on a level playing field, they obviously have done well"
Read my last post. As I said before, without SEO, they would not have gotten the jobs (probably not). And because THEY are given the job, more qualified people who did not go through SEO did not.
Look buddy, I think I can comment on asian people and second gen, being that I am one of these said second gens. Look at the international education rankings, the asian countries are at the very top. College in China, India, Korea are many times more competitive than the US. I am speaking from experience when the majority of asians who immigrated 20-30 years ago were highly educated in subsidized educations that were comparable if not better than US institutions, to pursue further education, usually on post-bac fellowships. I don't where you get your facts about the asian education from, but any person who's been abroad to these countries and seen the level of competitiveness at the HS and college level will tell you that they blow the US out of the water. And yes, this was likely true even 20 years ago.
And yes, the government did (and kinda still does) subsidize education. It's called communism, that's how society was set up back then.
Again, it is because of lack of opportunity, not lack of qualifications.
The people SEO tends to help the most are wealthy minorities. I have three friends of mine that are doing/have done SEO during the summer. One is a kid from Africa w/ a 3.1 GPA and a brand new benz that his parents bought him for his birthday (starting work full-time at ML this summer). Another, an Exeter kid, will be doing it this summer as a sophomore. And the last one did it as a sophomore and will be starting as a summer analyst at GS come June. Once a minority gets into a great college, skin color suddenly becomes a huge advantage. Especially for fields such as banking, corporate law, and consulting, being a middle class white kid with no connections makes everything exponentially harder than for black kids who have these sorts of networking opportunities available. AA is a wonderful thing and all, but once into college, it starts to tip the balance too far toward the other direction. The three of these kids are not only incredibly more wealthy than I (they went to prestigious east coast private schools, I to a decent cali public school) with all the educational resources going to such a school entails, but also have the benefit of being born with a skin color that can get you an internship at a BB AS A SOPHOMORE. Competing with kids who have a better educational background, a sophomore internship in banking, and a skin color that is preferable for PR purposes makes everything pretty difficult for a white guy with zero family connections and a far superior GPA.
For your information gq, >3.5 at a target is not great. If SEO hired great candidates (better than the ones companies have themselves), then why wouldn't all companies use the program? If SEO hired great candidates that worked so much harder, why are SEO return ft offers so much lower? If SEO is so great, why do they essentially test you nothing on financial technicals?
I agree that a 3.5 at a target is not great, but from reading every thread on this board, it seems that that's all u need to get in banking. People consistently given advice saying "if you have a 3.5 at a target 'you're set'."
As far as why don't all companies use the program, I'm not sure what you're asking. Every BB on Wall St uses the program, as well as every top law firm (SEO as a coroprate law program). If you're asking why doesn't every Fortune 500 company use it, probably because SEO focuses more on Investment Banking, Asset Management and Corporate Law.
As far full-time offer percentages, I don't have complete statistics, but EVERY SEO intern at my bank recieved a full-time offer. Again, I don't doubt that SEO full-time percentages are lower than average. I'm not saying every SEO intern is a "rock star." Again SEO is not perfect, but it's a good first step.
And SEO only tests you on technical/financial knowledge.
"As I said before, without SEO, they would not have gotten the jobs (probably not). And because THEY are given the job, more qualified people who did not go through SEO did not."
This is probably true, but it has nothing to do with qualification, but because of racial discrimination. You seem to live in some utopia where racism doesn't exist. I guarantee you if a white candidate and a black candidate applied for the same job with the same exact credentials. The white candidate would be hired.
SEO tests mostly fit. Your definition of technical knowledge is clearly not the same as normal financial technicals. A 17*17 or 1+2 is not financial technicals. When was the last time SEO asked about LBOs, m&a analyses, in-depth valuation techniques?
And no, many firms on wall street may participate, but the number of seo candidates that enroll in each firm are different. Also, not all firms use it, and not all firms, including strong regionals and strong boutiques, use it. When you have a ton of slots, sure you can reserve some for those who aren't exactly the people you are looking for, but when spots are limited, then the picture is different.
Again, I ask.. where are you getting your information on what SEO candidates are or are not like, what their interviews are like, etc? You seem to be making pretty broad generalizations (eg. Someone who goes through SEO should be blacklisted for their entire career even if they are good enough to work at Blackstone, just because they decided to go through the program.)
And regarding the Blackstone argument, while I have no doubt that the individuals being talked about are brilliant people, I am sure there are also some pretty brilliant guys who were turned down, perhaps because they worked at ML rather than GS. My point is that, as everyone discusses so much on this forum, exit opps from Goldman will beat those from any other bank. And, as is the case with my friend, they do take candidates (candidates that would not have been accepted otherwise) due to the color of these candidates' skin. While for a firm like Blackstone, which only hires the cream of the crop from any bank, this may not matter, mediocre analysts from Goldman will still have pretty decent opportunities.
And the guy talking about SEO interns working "10x harder" is delirious. The selection process is nowhere near as selective as the regular process (you say 10% get selected, in the regular pool that number is far less than 1%). And no joke, one of my buddies who participated in the program is close to incompetent, and he'll be the first to admit that the only reason he landed the position was due to SEO. All you have to do is get >3.0 at a target and you're set (at my school anyone who bothered to apply was accepted).
"This is probably true, but it has nothing to do with qualification, but because of racial discrimination. You seem to live in some utopia where racism doesn't exist. I guarantee you if a white candidate and a black candidate applied for the same job with the same exact credentials. The white candidate would be hired."
That is simply not true, at least in banking/consulting/corporate law. A black kid with precisely the same skill set/GPA/interviewing ability would have a far better chance of landing the job than a white candidate. It would take a pretty significant disparity between the qualifications of the two to give the white kid the advantage. The reason for a program like SEO is not because people think that HR people are virulent racists, but rather that minorities do not have the same connections that some white kid from Exeter/Andover would have due to daddy. Which is great, but it assumes that no minorities come from wealth or have connections, and that no white kids were not born into a situation which provided them with great networking options.
gqbanker15: I don't think you got my point, nor that of Moncrief.
"There's always GE..."
Classic.
I have a question. Why is that black frats and sororities have lower average GPA's than white frats and sororities everywhere????????? Look at any top school that has frats - Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Vanderbilt, Upenn, Northwestern and look at Greek office's list of GPA's and you will see for yourself. Now, if all those kids have already been given a chance to go to a top school and are not making the best of it, why should they be given a second chance? Why? Give me one reason! Why should a 3.7 white kid from Upenn not get an internship and a 3.1 black kid from Upenn get it? How is the black kid more disadvantaged? They took the same classes, had the same professors, used the same career services etc. But the black kid has better chances of landing an internship - if not through the regular channels, then through SEO. How is that fair? I am actually pro-AA based on income when it comes to college acceptances, because kids from crappy schools, do have a harder time preparing for SAT, taking AP exams etc. But once you are in college, all bets are over. If you cannot take advantage of one chance, then you don't deserve a second. Most people in this world, don't even get that one chance...
Hahaha, did you copy and paste that, Salam?
Lol, yeah. I think my voice got lost, because I posted in the middle of a confrontation. I want to be heard. As a first generation, I have views to offer :)
Black people are dumb.
Ugh...I was really hoping this thread wouldn't turn into an Affirmative Action flame thread or a SEO good or bad thread. oh well =(
I was simply wondering whether networking programs exist for minorities who have already broken into the industry and are at a top tier bulge bracket firm already. (a program such as SEO but doesn't place people into banks, but is simply a networking tool...)
poppin, please list the top schools and # of winners attending each school.
first, some previous poster said: white vs black with same qualifications (exclude SEO), results in white getting job
well, some WSJ study showed: asian vs anyone else with same qualifications, results in asians doing worse
so there, one instance where racial discrimination against asians because asians are working their asses off and need to go beyond "above and beyond"
second, SEO is bullshit when middle class/upper class/fucking loaded international asians get in. i agree. SEO should be based on income. and when you talk about income, blacks and hispanics should bitch less because look at the white trailer trash. white are vicious against their own, esp if they are trash
third, we should focus on what cultural values racial groups tend to emphasize. jews have dominated because they are closely integrated like the blacks (and WASPs? rich ones at least), and they emphasize education like the asians. asians dont pull for each other (i know.. being an asian). alot of blacks (i dont know about the wealthy ones because i'm in nyc) glamorize stupid behavior (drugs, not studying, didn't chris rock say something about some black guy getting a Masters degree?). personally, i think blacks are very intelligent so i'll leave some great rap lyrics:
"It's because we can't see ourselves as the boss Deep-rooted through slavery, self-hatred The Jewish stick together, friends in high places We on some low level shit ... We on the charts now; from British Walkers and Argyles Look at us rap stars now, wit our black cars now Fortune 500 listed, brunches, sip Cipriani's Sippin', blunted, with rich white guys around me Thick white girls around me, Chinese lined up Because I'm what?, every dime lust We used to be a ghetto secret; can't make my mind up"
chinese lined up? yeah,because we are coolies and awesome servants (just look at IB). asians aren't getting thick white girls anytime soon either. as minorities, we all are rooted in some self-hatred (anyone read article in NYT about asian-americans in the entertainment industry?). but just suck it up so the next generation can go sing, What more could I say? I wouldn't be here today if the old school didn't pave the way
I just thought about that, while I sit here ashing in this ash tray, yeah
i've been on this message board for the last three months and this thread is beyond ridiculous.
personally, i applied to SEO, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs SEPARATELY (and only those three) and received offers from the three. my demos? black, female, from the ghetto in one of the top 25 most murderous cities in America (median income $29,000). with a lot of luck and some hardwork, i got into an ivy (with no resources. first one to apply and get in from my school, actually) and have averaged a 3.8 GPA in the last two years. quant classes = all As.
many of my classmates/friends that i grew up with simply were not as fortunate as me nor did they actually put in the effort. why? lots of reasons, but the first and foremost is that our environment sucks. i have one friend that was convicted of murder who happened to be one of the few people who defended me from bullies when i was growing up, a few others that have been sexually abused when they were younger, many more others who dropped out of school to support their families and or children... the beat goes on. honestly, until you live in an inner city and realize how depressing it is, i don't think anyone can truly understand what obstacles we are up against. it's depressing and a lot of people fall through the cracks. i easily could have.
i was fortunate that i had a mom that took on three jobs to get me where i am. birth dad gone before i learned my ABCS. i was also fortunate that i had mentors and teachers who supported me through out school, and guided me through the college process. only took the SAT twice with about three practice exams under my belt. after getting in to college, i used all the resources i had at my school. even though i'm a history major, i got the offers.
but, i am the exception. one element from my picture could have been missing and i would not be in the same place. I'm all for AA/SEO for socio-economic reasons. Does it mean that I'm less qualified? No. GS and MS would not have interviewed me for god knows how many times if they didn't think I could do the work. But for people like me who had the odds against them in the first place, SEO presents the OPPORTUNITY to prove oneself. No one, from looking at my high school, would say that I would be getting the GPA that I have now at my school. But I am.
Bottom Line: It's the opportunity that I've been given that allows me to fight and "beat" those who come from a privileged background. The stars have to be lined up right for people like me - whether poor and white or poor and black.
http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=579369&mc=10&forum_id=1
Schools enrolling more than 25 externally-sponsored scholars (and change
from last year)
Harvard 294 (+7)
Yale 186 (-46)
Princeton 153 (-27)
Stanford 153 (-41)
MIT 135 (+4)
Duke 118 (+1)
U Penn 100 (-1)
Brown 94 (+32)
Berkeley 70 (+20)
Dartmouth 69 (+5)
WUStL 66 (+17)
Cornell 64 (+29)
Columbia 62 (-9)
Michigan 58 (-1)
Texas 58 (-2)
Notre Dame 56 (+7)
Georgetown 50 (+8)
Northwestern 50 (+9)
Rice 50 (-9)
Florida 45 (+3)
Chicago 37 (-11)
Southern Cal 32 (+1)
North Carolina 31 (0)
Virginia 31 (-5)
Texas A&M 31 (-4)
Arizona State 30 (+10)
Caltech 29 (-15)
lala, it doesn't matter than you got into goldman and MS because you are black. They knew you were black therefore you were only competing against other blacks because they are going to accept a certain number regardless of qualifications.
BTW living in a area with a high crime not should not equal a boost in admissions. Black people like to kill and thats their problem, we shouldn't support it. Also don't have sex with black men, good chance they are secretly gay and will give you AIDS. I'm just looking out for you.
popping, do you post on XOXO? how about the law board?
Lmao
by sleepyguyb (Monkey, 61) on Fri, 2007-03-02 00:12 reply | quote
I got an offer for Ops from a top 5 vault ibank and pay was 40k with signing bonus + end of year bonus. The location isnt in NYC though, I guess they adjusted to reflect COL. Lame.
---that was his post about the ops job. So I guess he is going around laughing at people because he has an offer in bumblefcuk,whatever in ops.
kas, suck my nuts possibly? my point still stands, i compete against whites, blacks compete against other blacks
seo is crap, i only know crap candidates from seo
This is nothing more than a reverse discrimination program.
Well I guess it comes down to (a) communication (that includes how well you speak English and how articulate you are. I have seen international students who despite English isn't their first language, speak pretty intelligibly and intelligently. @Carnival: yeah I've seen that as well, but mostly among freshmen, when they get to senior year their English gets better)
(b) personality/fit: I think this is of paramount important. If you want to climb the corporate ladder you need someone high up who'd back you, go to bat for you, induct you to the other league. It helps if you have a Asian American in their or someone whose background is similar to yours. After all, even for their white counterparts, if you don't get along well/be liked by your colleagues/people above, you won't get any further
(c) your ability: I don't need to elaborate on this :D
That said, I hope you guys (Americans I mean) can perhaps be more patient when it comes to the language. I couldn't understand even the simplest English conversation until I was 18. I taught myself English when I was in college (no I don't go to school in the US, which till this day is my biggest, greatest regret. I was in the Midwest on an exchange scholarship for one semester and that was the best time of my life), and during my short time there, I've seen many international students who, despite their effort in learning, struggle to communicate. I guess English doesn't come easy to some of us :) Be kind and start talking to them sometimes :)
3rd generation Asian-American here; I could write a book on this topic but I will limit my thoughts to a few points:
1) The Bamboo Ceiling definitely exists, but its hardly limited to the corporate world. I think the "Paper Tigers" article in New York magazine said that Asians, on average, need a higher SAT score to get in the same school as a white applicant would. I think this because of two reasons, 1)the fact that we're an ethnic minority, and 2) the plethora of cultural, societal factors that constitute "East Asian culture", the ceiling isn't going away anytime soon.
2) Although I think it is good that we discuss this issue, I think the more we discuss it, the more it becomes real. Simply put, it is too easy to blame everything on "being Asian". Yes, the bamboo ceiling exists. Yes, it is unfair. Yes, you do have to work harder. What are you going to do about it?
And I agree about the confidence part- I've seen "alpha male Asians" do a decently impressive job in a leadership role, but they usually had some external factors inapplicable to the greater Asian population working for them (rich, well-educated, good-looking, etc.). In other words, they had a lot of stuff going for them.
And also, I don't think it is simply language- this issue has actually been discussed quite extensively by Asian-Americans that are fairly assimilated. Rather, I think it is because virtues that East Asians praise--modesty, obedience, politeness-- in a corporate setting mean having other people take credit for your work, having a hard time judging when you should "push back", and "being too nice" in a culture that praises assertiveness, respectively.
And on the point of modesty- I think there's a certain sense of humility associated with being an ethnic minority- I've noticed this in all types of Asians- fairly assimilated Asians educated in New England prep schools to uneducated Chinese-American Panda-Express working Asians in Oakland. And again, not the best trait to have in a competitive, assertive atmosphere.
Thought this was thread about retro rolling papers and french vietnamese porn stars. Disappointment.
Network and personality is the big thing wit the so-called "Bamboo Ceiling". No doubt after a few generations the problems disappear, but the culture differences and (if international) heavy accent are big downsides to having them in upper management. When some Asians give presentations in school I literally can't understand wtf they are saying, and it seems that stress/overworking is very easy. Like I said, it's probably cultural differences, but if you look at the fT recruiting sessions it seems like its usually mostly fobby asians. Business isn't the most cerebral thing in the world, else Harvard would be an instant billionaire maker. The intangibles (personality) come more and more into play as you move up the corporate ladder and go from crunching numbers to making and developing relationships.
Obviously there are outliers, I have Asian friends who are cool and able to have fun- but the overall image (whether true or not) is that Asians are analogous to the white, skinny geeky dude. And you see very few of those in upper management either.
Isn't a majority of first generation Asians still fairly young? I'm guessing they're mostly in their 20s and mid 30s at most.
In which case, shouldn't we wait longer before making any judgments?
I think it's quite obvious why immigrant Asians don't get management positions, but Asians born in the US are on more equal footing since they learned English fairly early.
I think a significant portion of the post-60's Chinese diaspora living in the US comes from academic/intellectual backgrounds. Many members of that first generation were fleeing the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution or among the first cohort to pursue international college/graduate degrees. Culturally, these are not the kinds of people that are going to raise their kids to be leaders. Educated and studious? Sure. But not charming and with very little emphasis on the psychology of others, other than basic power dynamics and a predisposition for passivity.
It's not like Asians in Asia can't lead. Love Mao or Hate Mao (or Zhou Enlai), the dude was a balls-out leader. Same goes for Jack Ma, Wen Jiabao, Zhang Xin, et al..
A big component of leadership is intuitive, big-picture thinking. The most admired and successful leaders are the ones who have a vision or prediction of the future and take the necessary steps to realize or exploit that opportunity. There is nothing particularly brilliant about the iPhone, Facebook, or Paulson's bet against the housing market. It doesn't take a 3.9 from Harvard or a bunch of upper level quant classes and bullshit extracurriculars to make those kinds of things happen. It takes intuition, guts, and the ability to rally people to your cause.
You've got to fight for what you want or think you deserve. Nobody is going to give you anything based on your merits alone. Just because your parents love you unconditionally doesn't mean the outside world gives a single shit about you. If your upbringing has left you socially and emotionally retarded, fix yourself. Go buy How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie, The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene, and the Art of Seduction by Robert Greene. Go on a bunch of dates. Learn how other people think instead of living a self-absorbed, entitled, and solipsistic existence.
Also:
[quote=Tracer]I think a significant portion of the post-60's Chinese diaspora living in the US comes from academic/intellectual backgrounds. Many members of that first generation were fleeing the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution or among the first cohort to pursue international college/graduate degrees. Culturally, these are not the kinds of people that are going to raise their kids to be leaders. Educated and studious? Sure. But not charming and with very little emphasis on the psychology of others, other than basic power dynamics and a predisposition for passivity.
It's not like Asians in Asia can't lead. Love Mao or Hate Mao (or Zhou Enlai), the dude was a balls-out leader. Same goes for Jack Ma, Wen Jiabao, Zhang Xin, et al..
A big component of leadership is intuitive, big-picture thinking. The most admired and successful leaders are the ones who have a vision or prediction of the future and take the necessary steps to realize or exploit that opportunity. There is nothing particularly brilliant about the iPhone, Facebook, or Paulson's bet against the housing market. It doesn't take a 3.9 from Harvard or a bunch of upper level quant classes and bullshit extracurriculars to make those kinds of things happen. It takes intuition, guts, and the ability to rally people to your cause.
You've got to fight for what you want or think you deserve. Nobody is going to give you anything based on your merits alone. Just because your parents love you unconditionally doesn't mean the outside world gives a single shit about you. If your upbringing has left you socially and emotionally retarded, fix yourself. Go buy How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie, The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene, and the Art of Seduction by Robert Greene. Go on a bunch of dates. Learn how other people think instead of living a self-absorbed, entitled, and solipsistic existence.
Also:
]
Hear Hear. UK-based Asian here.
Having target school education is merely the baseline. Rising through the ranks and navigating corporate politics requires the soft skills that you only learn by hanging around the most socially adept and culturally-informed people. Basically you need to remove the perception (however unfair) that you only hang around Asian cliques, and then maybe you will have the chance to convince that you can play with best blue-chip players. No amount of test-acing is going to help you with that.
suck it up pussies
if you're a socially-proficient minority, the world is your oyster
maybe becausee....
http://imgur.com/gallery/OcRKK
maybe becausee....
http://imgur.com/gallery/OcRKK
I love it when Asians cry racist for not being successful ENOUGH. Some other groups should take a hint cough
I am sure there are all kinds of ceilings for people. I think so much growth is going on in China and Asian that being Asian and speaking the language is so much of a benefit that it outweighs any type of ceiling or whatnot.
What about the Whiskey ceiling for us Ginger Irish folk? Haven't seen any of my ginger brethren running things recently
Always knew that there was something I didn't like about you.
Also, too many Chinese and Korean people go for the job with the highest salary and perceived prestige with absolutely no regard for whether or not it's something they want to do. Long run, this isn't the best strategy.
What the hell? This just sounds dumb.
Happy, no one likes a freaking ginger bro. Don't make me go Eric Cartman on your ass.
2 types of asians:
1) twinkie 2) fob
twinkies get sh*t on by fobs for trying to assimilate and having the characteristics needed to advance in the corporate world (i.e., social, outgoing, open-minded, etc.). if you took fobs out of the general asian-american population, i bet you have a proportionate amount of asians in the upper ranks.
I give the Chinese props for setting high standards and pretty much grabbing every opportunity by the balls BUT it makes life 10x harder for the rest of Asians like (Cambodians, Pakistanis, Bengalis, etc) & themselves. Knowing several ppl at MS & JPM, I know many applicants are heavily screened. Since there is so much competition these days, many applicants are perfectly qualified and capable. But if they have 6 Asians that are perfect for the position and 1-2 African Americans perfect for the position, who would they pick? The majority or minority?
In NYC, Asians have the highest salaries and have been rapidly populating past ten years. While there has been a 10% decrease in the white population. If you go more in depth, 75-80% by “Asians” they mean Chinese.
Chinese are a majority in many ways. In a global perspective and a corporate perspective.
I’m sure my fellow New Yorkers could confirm this. All you need to do is use subway or go to any networking event.
No offense to any Chinese users even thou it’s probably a majority here as well
So true, I am often mistaken for Chinese (by both Chinese and Western people). I actually don't mind this except that it's just sad thinking in most people's mind, there is probably little space for other "Asians" :(
Maybe it's because you are all really unattractive, uncreative tools?
^^Quarterlife, there are a billion people in China (not counting the diaspora).
It really sucks because some of the smartest people get passed over b/c they aren't pushy loudmouths. One asian girl at the last WSO meetings was talking about becoming more pushy so that she gets ahead. For what racial stereotypes are worth, why not get kung fu on everyone's ass....we know you got it in you, seriously, lose the perfect manners and get real.
What about the Taco ceiling ? Why you gringos no give us jobs Señor ?
There is a difference between not being a "pushy loudmouth" and being a pussy and taking a lot of shit. And the latter seems to be prevalent with the Asians I know. They don't know when to say no, or when to fight back. This leads towards them being taken advantage of and not taken seriously. It's some beta shit.
i mean it's a ceiling made out of bamboo. can't you chew your way through?
i don't think fobs or a twinkies are the only type of asians as dave742 categorizes it
and seriously, that girl has a point. i tend to be more quiet and I realized that I have to be a lot more upfront about things in order to be heard.
we all know kung fu. i know a bit, at least. Being quiet all the time is frustrating. urges to kungfu people's asses has passed my mind on multiple occasions
Well it used to leak during the rainy season so i replaced it with plastic sheets... plus the elephants don't eat my roof anymore so that's a plus
I am a first gen Asian and yes, people do classify me as a twinkie or banana because I don't behave like a fob or hang out with them.
In my opinion the ceiling is created by the very people that claims to be held back by one. I was never a 4.0 student, shit I barely graduated with a 3.0 from a state school. What I realize early on is that charisma and networking will bring you further than any stupid little paper with a gold star on it. I am one of the few Asian S&T guys in my firm and my MD is a twinkie as well.
My advice is to simply assimilate into the culture and not expect the culture to come around to accept your differences.
Please clarify for us white guys, what is a twinkie and what is a fob?
okay white guy.
Twinkie: yellow on the outside, white on the inside. Essentially it is to reference an Asian that acts, talks and culturally similar to a white guy.
F.O.B: acronym for Fresh Off the Boat, Asians that are not well assimilated nor speak decent engrish.
Interesting conversation here. The US Government classifies people with origins in the Indian subcontinent as Asian-Americans. College admissions committees also classify them as Asian-American.
Looks like people here do not classify Indians as Asians. So is there a separate ceiling for us? But I can give you examples of a lot of Indians who have risen to the top. The CEOs of Pepsi, Citi and Motorolla are Indian immigrants. I'm just wondering if there is a difference between Indians and east-Asians.
Also Raj Rajaratnam and Rajat Gupta(CEO of McKinsey) before they got caught.
FYI: I'm a FOB from the subcontinent. However, I do feel like I have assimilated well enough and can speak pretty decent English.
Care to comment on the differences?
Any examples/anecdotes that come to mind about being pushy when push comes to shove (as opposed to being shoved)?
like harold was pushed around in the first harold and kumar movie
Indians do the best of helping each other, like the Jews, out of all the Asian-Americans cultures. I'd say the Koreans are second best but don't have the sheer numbers to really make a huge impact. Chinese, in my opinion, aren't nearly as cultural connected.
SenorSerious, what other asian types are there?
personally, i'm first generation chinese american, so i wouldn't be a fob. and i wouldn't say i'm a twinkie. i hang out with whoever and I don't particularly act a certain way to be considered "white". I'm just saying that you made it seem as though there are only two types of asians in general
sorry, left one out. i call you guys candy corns. white on one end, yellow on the other...all coming together in a neutral orange middle. you guys are pretty rare.
definitely true that stereotyping saves time.
I don't care. I'm a quant. I NO NEED SPEAK ENGLISH PERFECT NONO.
that's a new term to me. i like a good balance and it can't be that rare. i feel like that's pretty common at my college. Though there are those who tend to "flock together".
What are people's experiences with indians? is there a ceiling there as well?
Talk about English. Who cares whether or not you can speak it?
\m/
Indians tend to perform better. A lot of my Indian buddies are prototypical bankers
East Asians for the most part hit a ceiling
I agree with this, on the more 'tech' side of things where I am as well this is true.
I know some really smart Asian guys who literally just couldn't talk themselves out of a paper bag and so they're going no where. My Indian buddies on the otherhand are (usually) more creative with not only their people skills, but also their code. And they're actually fun to have a beer with.
The only azn i'd trust would be an indian neurosurgeon (they are all neurosurgeons wtf is wrong with you indians, can you all stop overachieving, you re embarrassing us.... there has to be at least one indian who's not smart, i blame it on the little skinny non-violence guy... god i hate you!!!)...
Just because you are insanely book smart doesn't mean you have the mental capacity to lead people. Two very different things.
To quote someone, "No one's gonna promote you cause you're smart. Everyone wants smart people working FOR them."
Anyone in a client-facing industry with an accent and terrible social skills will have some sort of ceiling as far as their progression goes.
1st generation Indian's tend to be legit. Same with Asians. Once America sets in and you have born and brought up here it goes to shit.
2nd generation Indian and Asian people act like normal Americans (aka morons).
Sounds like you're a RAYCiIIIiiiSt !!
I speaka good engrish!!!!!
what would you call the ceiling for black people?
^^^^hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Talented people will get opportunities to advance, no matter their race. The talent of a successful senior banker is a sort of congeniality and gravitas that can't be taught but is inherited through unique experiences (sports teams, frats, military, etc). A more isolated and academic upbringing (ie stereotypical asian) doesn't typically breed these character traits.
Asians are 4.8% of the US population. I don't think they are particularly underrepresented at senior level.
It's a generational thing.
Prior to the late 1990s, finance in the western world was predominantly a white man's game.
Execs at F500 were overwhelmingly white male good ol' boys. Politicians were overwhelmingly white male good ol' boys. Those who had money in the western world (rich families, endowments, foundations) were overwhelmingly white.
So it helps immensely being a white male MD or a white male PE/VC/HF partner -- since these people were your primary source of funding and clients, and you and your families end up having lots in common socially (i.e. same hobbies, same private club memberships, same private schools you send your kids to, blah blah blah).
It's still mostly white male, but becoming less so in the last 10-15 years. There are more non-white males, women of all backgrounds, etc. starting to become execs, politicians, and wealthy. Not to mention that the world of finance has become even more global than it was in the 1990s -- so that it's not only a US-western Euro thing, but wealth and capital from around the world (Asia, LatAm, Mideast) becoming more integrated and less provincial. So if you are a bank or fund now (as opposed to the 1990s and before), you're looking at stuff globally now, and you will need people who can access and tap those markets.
If you want to know why there are so few Asians right now at the top of the food chain in the western world (in finance), here's a bit of perspective for you:
When I was an IBD analyst back in the mid-1990s, I can count on one hand how many Asians (whether Asian-American or Asians) there were in my analyst class at a bulge bracket. It was still overwhelmingly white. And go back just a few years to the early 1990s, and there were virtually none (or like one token Asian guy). That's why you see so few at the top because prior to the 2000s, Wall Street was very very very white. And yet in the last 10-15 years it's changed dramatically. As someone said, something like 30% of most lower ranks at banks and funds are Asian (or non-white males).
You'll see more Asians at the higher ranks in the next few years. It's inevitable and it will happen. Even if there is discrimination, the sheer numbers of folks means that they can't stop everyone haha
lol PIGS' joke was better then Happypants
Ni hao!! You waaannn the IB?? You waaaannnn the cash?? Ok, Ok...
You no good enoughhh!!!
The perception (and existence) of a bamboo ceiling is great for you Millennial Asians -- Throw every other Asian kid who's a wallflower, asks stupid questions at info sessions, hands their resume in first 3 seconds -- throw them under the bus by being polished and part of the old boys club.
That you can play the same game as them, even better.
But you know what? When you really work in Asia, especially China--if you're not bamboo, you're going to learn business the hard way. Jack Ma is putting his dick in Meg Whitman's skull.
Best of both worlds here -- think strategically, think positive. Quit complaining.
I'm a 1st generation Asian American of S.E. Asian origin. I agree with a good combination of things here: Firstly, the generational thing that MBAApply mention is definitely true. Secondly, the Asian population represents just under 5% of US population. So no it should not be surprising to see few Asians in top spots. And lastly, cultural and language barriers especially for Asian immigrants. Yes, it's painful to hear non-native english speakers present and that holds them back. By the same token I probably would not be a CEO of a Chinese company in China without knowing Mandarin.
Now as for the cultural thing, here's an interesting story I heard from co-workers. There was a fellow Asian in our intern program for trading who was offered a FT position. He had to decline because his parents did not like or were not familiar with the compensation structure. There are other cultural things that others have already mentioned like nerdiness, social awkwardness, etc., etc.
My take? It's a perception that you (if you're Asian) can break or fall into that conformity. Italian, Jewish, and Irish immigrants had to go through the same rites of passage when they immigrated here a century ago. I have Indian friends that are brash, aggressive and on their way to the top of their fields (of course smart as hell too). Not the stereotypical Asian. Me? I love doing that meat-headed shit like playing American football, lifting, competing, and I love interacting with people. My brother? True stereotypical Asian - smart, shy, conservative and highly risk averse. He knows he'll be doing B.O. work and he's fine with that.
Leaders are alpha type personalities. You have it or you don't.
....and amen to Wolfy's take: "Think positive. Quit complaining."
It's interesting that a lot of the comments so far have involved for the most part, males. Do you think the stereotypes apply differently for females? In my experience, Asian females aren't penalized for being not bro-y enough. Instead, they are judged for being "competitive bitches.'
Quia est ut rerum aliquid ipsa. Vel rem molestiae quo necessitatibus sunt.
Quod unde deleniti quae sunt voluptatum. Omnis magni debitis quas nisi. Fugiat quaerat rerum corrupti et et necessitatibus.
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...
Perferendis ut et fugit velit vel repudiandae earum tenetur. Ipsum facere voluptatum possimus veniam totam et maiores. Earum tempore esse ipsam voluptas unde sunt. Non ut qui quas repellat. Ut ipsa molestiae eius aliquam rerum eveniet voluptatem. Quia eius quia a ut sint sed. Ipsum sequi aut voluptas eveniet.
Perferendis illo consectetur quidem quis consectetur pariatur. Et accusantium cum voluptas et perspiciatis dolorem. Quis dolores repudiandae quia similique odit. Officiis voluptas nemo aut corporis vel quo.
Saepe a quasi sapiente. Voluptatem vero provident et nisi in dolore. Veniam porro dolor ad voluptatem reprehenderit.
Esse et quae consequuntur ut dolore. Tenetur consectetur tempore tempore quia aliquam in repellat. Magnam iusto facere distinctio consequatur. Molestiae nobis ea quia dicta.
Aut voluptates molestiae non nam. Et velit eum est praesentium eveniet neque exercitationem. Voluptate porro et consequatur cum consequatur dicta et. Aut ut ut dolor. Aliquam et quia repudiandae voluptatum. Ab tempora illum atque voluptatibus tenetur.
Voluptates eaque voluptas ipsam distinctio qui aliquid suscipit. Ipsam quia beatae soluta. Vel quaerat ullam illum. Consequatur soluta nulla libero aut aliquid nam.
Sint culpa at sed sint. Quasi mollitia eaque excepturi ad perferendis sapiente aspernatur. Quo doloremque hic consectetur tenetur beatae consectetur quis.
Qui libero aliquid eum optio necessitatibus. Ipsam repudiandae quos voluptas aut error asperiores corporis. Modi consectetur dolorem magni asperiores consequatur est sed consectetur. Perferendis quis nostrum odio et et. Quaerat ut quod facere excepturi. Dolor qui voluptatem atque et.
Ullam quis nihil eos ducimus et veritatis iste ratione. Reiciendis ut ducimus error ipsam. Doloremque maxime et ipsam provident ratione aspernatur quam.
Excepturi debitis rem cum distinctio. Voluptatem tenetur et dicta est officiis alias ipsam.
Quo minus est et asperiores tempore. Deleniti et quia qui ipsam maxime culpa. Occaecati autem accusamus qui voluptatem praesentium aliquam aut est. Rerum natus voluptatibus dignissimos eum temporibus rerum iste. Et et quia accusantium exercitationem doloribus doloribus voluptatum quibusdam.
Repudiandae quis ab maiores eos dolores. Aut quae similique rerum recusandae nostrum. Ipsam quae tempore ullam dolorem dignissimos quia.
Consequatur aut occaecati iure deserunt sint illo tempora dolorum. Beatae enim ut nobis eaque placeat at facilis. Sint nemo sapiente et dolores illum reprehenderit eligendi. Aut ut magnam laudantium et distinctio et accusamus sint.
Sequi et nihil doloremque qui. Molestias possimus saepe voluptas enim itaque facilis repudiandae. Minus repellat est quidem.
Repellendus rem distinctio qui quo autem cupiditate. Sunt deleniti laborum unde ratione hic rerum. Voluptates praesentium possimus harum aliquid. Adipisci non eos ut autem repellendus amet aut.
Eos occaecati ab voluptate magnam aut. Rem unde quia deserunt dolore est earum. Omnis tempora sunt possimus. Nobis eos et ipsam sed aperiam aut magnam.
Vel vel eaque non dolorem quo et. Soluta optio qui voluptatum. Id vel vel repudiandae quia.
Aut alias dolorem id fuga provident natus eligendi. Totam minima quos exercitationem rerum est quis. Iste unde harum et recusandae expedita deleniti quaerat. Ut voluptatem veniam dicta eveniet. Distinctio accusantium atque dolor est quibusdam.
Soluta perferendis tenetur fugiat porro itaque corporis non. Itaque iste atque minus blanditiis culpa. Est eligendi eaque error et. Enim consequatur itaque aspernatur consequuntur ea omnis. Deleniti illum ut sapiente. Non est aperiam rerum suscipit ut ea dicta.
Totam accusamus quo repellat reprehenderit autem quia eum non. Est illum sit cumque ut cum quo voluptates. Iste quia nihil sed ab et perspiciatis. Labore itaque ullam iure ut ab quia pariatur. Sint est vel laudantium non nam non. Soluta eos ipsam iusto. Non quos aut et voluptas neque et cumque.
Possimus laudantium voluptatem est omnis. Quia vero sed maiores in et. Sed eveniet sed non qui nostrum aut. Quas quia assumenda enim facilis itaque id.
Reiciendis distinctio aliquid sequi enim libero quaerat. Iusto consequatur ab nisi assumenda. Et vel officia officia quam officia.
Corporis optio aut dolorem minus minus. Consequatur officiis dolorem odio quia aliquam voluptatem. Eligendi illo sint fugiat deserunt amet et quidem. Iure voluptates quisquam quidem velit ratione omnis. Dolorem quisquam est voluptatum nulla totam qui quibusdam. Autem quisquam qui aspernatur tempora.
Amet hic eos corrupti maiores. Illo et culpa harum tempore temporibus. Sequi dicta et ut ab vero cupiditate sapiente. Corrupti iste sunt dolorem omnis et quo qui delectus. Porro officia voluptas quae et.
Vitae assumenda enim et voluptas at. Quia voluptatem et veniam vel. Voluptate neque quo alias officiis quos voluptatem repellat. Voluptate aut et dolorem ut maiores suscipit. Numquam quia ex voluptas aut veritatis.
Sunt aliquam enim veritatis sunt non. Hic suscipit veniam unde optio sit ea quo. Esse sit in corrupti aut. Non similique et libero necessitatibus cumque.
Ea ut debitis saepe nobis aperiam ducimus enim. Quos odio qui placeat esse minus dolores. Dolorum et harum amet quae. Aut ab dignissimos facilis cupiditate et.
Similique assumenda rerum facilis ipsum et reprehenderit. Maiores est voluptatem quae a corporis deserunt. Maiores eos consequatur aut error eveniet natus. Non veniam aut quaerat odit aperiam. Assumenda eos deserunt quo est recusandae.
Autem omnis qui facilis atque rerum id. Qui reprehenderit dolorem unde. Quia tempora neque quod et. Sit a tenetur aliquam qui. Et nesciunt sint voluptatum est laudantium consequatur beatae.