Do interviewers "go easy" on diversity candidates in comparison to non-diversity candidates?
Hey all,
I have an interview coming up with Oliver Wyman. It is a final round interview and I am very nervous that I am underprepared. I received the interview because I am a diversity candidate.
Does anyone know if the interviewers go "easier" on diversity candidates in comparison to non diversity candidates? I am going to prep as much as possible before the interview but I was just curious if anyone had any insight on this?
Thanks.
What happened to the original intent of these programs - leveling the playing field? You being a diversity candidate got you an interview. That's perfectly fine with me, but why should the interviewer go "easier" on you just because you're a diversity candidate? How's this different from asking for a handout?
I think the purpose of diversity roles like AA has been abused. It should be for people with low income who are smart but really don't have the resources to answer all the same questions (which I'm fine with), what I have seen, is people who are well off but happen to be an URM. Diversity programs are good if they find the candidates from poorer backgrounds who still strive to do well, but it seems to be the worse target kids.
This is largely correct. Nothing further to add.
I agree that poorer minorities should be the main, maybe even only target for these programs, but preparation is a large issue. These spots do go to some poor kids but they’re in the minority. Most will be socially awkward and have a hard time succeeding outside of class, because they put nearly all of their time and energy into focusing on academics just to even be noticed coming out of their class. If you exclude race, less spots will go to minorities in favor of whites or overrepresented minorities. If you don’t include middle class to upper middle class URM, more URM, the ones who have much more developed social skills, will lose out on spots, which will probably hurt representation further. Therefore, the current standards seem to work best.
What the real BS is, is giving people interviews just because they are a minority or have some underrepresented background. Seems like these companies are the same politically correct social justice warriors that the university system is filled with. Merit is being pushed aside in the name of affirmative action and preferential treatment based on background and skin color.
Merit is a pretty sketchy concept when you’re talking about an entry level finance job where your main value add is your willingness to do bitch work that others don’t want to do. Add to that effects like “culture fit”, and nepotism (familial, academic institution, fraternity, etc) and you end up with a scenario where “merit” ends up being closer to “similarity to the people already there” than “ability to do the job well”, and it becomes pretty clear why diversity programs make things more fair. This becomes complicated a bit when you take into account research that shows that tight knit teams tend to perform better, and the fact that for salesy things the similarities actually are a merit of a sort, but at least for industries like non-buy side finance where most of your time is spent trying to eat somebody else’s lunch and not actually adding value to society this also makes the case for industry wide diversity policies (whether they be self implemented or imposed by the government).
First off, you should stop saying you got the interview just because you're a "diversity candidate". There must have been other things in your resume to get you that interview as well. (The diversity portion is not the sole reason you got it.)
I'm not sure they will go easier on you necessarily because then that would impact the firm. Don't most interview try to stress you to see how you do under pressure?
@TheROI- So preferential treatment never occurred because you were in the same frat? Or because your father "knows" someone higher up?
My guess is this is a troll. Given how hard you have to work to get an interview at a firm like Oliver Wyman, I find it hard to imagine someone would cite diversity as the only reason he got an interview. This is probably just trying to get people riled up, but I guess I can't be sure.
No, an interviewer won't make the interview easier, but the diversity factor might help when it comes time to decide who gets an offer.
I conduct interviews and have never gone easy on a candidate in a "diverse" classification nor have I ever been instructed to.
I, personally, think a lot of this is a self-preservation thing and comes down to people trying to blame something external to themselves. I consider it in the same general category as "I got a bad performance review because I'm a woman/gay/all the colors of the rainbow". No, you got the bad performance review because you didn't meet the criteria for a good one.
P.S. Congrats on the offer OP! That's a great one and I hope you have lots of great ones to choose from.
Have a couple friends who did the final round for OW diversity forum candidates... definitely went easier. Asked questions like "have you done a case interview before?" and "do you know what fixed costs are?" bruh
This smells heavy of troll dung.
If you're any type of diversity candidate, you know damn well there is no difference in the interview portion nor in the assessment, ESPECIALLY at a consulting firm. The diversity programs are to help provide access to an underrepresented pool. The criteria you're judged against is going to be 90% how you do in a case interview. And there is no possible way that you were all skipped into final round.
Just from the line of questioning you have you seem woefully unprepared for what's about to hit you. I helped run my firm's diversity program, and if what you described is the way OW is running their's, they need a serious revamp on wtf they're doing.
Now, in the unlikely event you aren't a troll, reach out and I can give you some case tips tailored to their style, and general tips on how to not make these programs look as ridiculous as you're making them sound.
It all depends what your idea of "diversity". If these programs are just designed to make every fifth person hired a diversity hire, but that person hired is still from a top school, does it really make a difference? Meaning, if both your parents went to Harvard or Penn, and had connects, does it really matter if you're white or black?
Real hiring diversity would be if a top bank made an effort to find fringe candidates who majored in finance/stats/econ who might not fit the mold or know exactly what IB is, but could get the job done.
Real, real diversity would be if companies/employees actually embraced diversity hires, and didn't just do it to put it on their website.
At the end of the day, diversity is really just counterintuitive, because we don't practice it in probably 95%-99% of our lives. You don't go searching for people who aren't like you or don't have similar interests just to have diverse friends; you don't go to restaurants you don't like just to be diverse or consume different entertainment to be diverse. Also, we don't really call for diversity in lot of other jobs. If we were really trying to be diverse, shouldn't the NBA/NFL (for example) have people of all sizes/races/genders?
I love how we have deteriorated from MLK preaching to not hire someone based on the colour of their skin to literally hiring someone based on the colour of their skin lmao.
The only people complaining about lack of diversity are people who can’t cut it with their ability. Simple as that. (I’m black btw)