DEI/SEO London: Helping Those Who Actually Need It or Missing the Mark?
Hi all,
I'm a first-year student at a high semi-target (think Durham/ Bristol/ Nottingham/ etc.) currently navigating the Spring Week application process. Over the past few months, I have attended various events in London hosted by BB, EB, and MM firms. While these events have been incredibly insightful, they have also left me questioning whether initiatives like DEI and specifically SEO London are achieving their intended goals.
Let me start by saying that the idea behind DEI is vital. Levelling the playing field for underrepresented and disadvantaged groups is an admirable mission. However, based on my observations, I cannot help but feel that the execution is flawed.
The Patterns I Have Noticed
At almost every event I have attended, the individuals who seem to benefit the most from DEI programmes, whether through access to exclusive events, interview opportunities, or even offers, often fall into one of two categories:
Highly Privileged Backgrounds
- I have encountered candidates from private schools or visibly wealthy families. For example, one individual I met at these events who had been there through SEO London, wore a watch that cost more than many first-year analyst’s base salary.
- These candidates clearly have the resources and networks to navigate the recruitment process without needing additional help.
Underqualified Candidates
- A sizeable number of candidates benefiting from these initiatives that aren't privileged are from non-target universities with low academic grades, often not meeting the minimum A-level requirements for FO roles.
- Many of these candidates also lacked even a basic understanding of key IB concepts, such as what a DCF is or how to calculate WACC.
- While broadening access is important, lowering the bar to this extent feels counterproductive, as it does not prepare candidates to succeed in the demanding and technical environment of investment banking.
- This approach risks creating a gap between the opportunities offered and the ability to thrive in those roles.
DEI Spring Weeks Are Everywhere
Another point worth mentioning is that a large number of Spring Week programmes this year are DEI-focused. To clarify, I do not mean the majority of seats are reserved for DEI candidates, but several firms, particularly EBs, are offering only Spring Weeks that are exclusively DEI. This raises questions about whether merit-based access for non-DEI candidates is being sidelined.
Who Benefits and Who Doesn't?
The intention of DEI is to support those facing systemic barriers, but from what I have observed, the main beneficiaries are often those who need it least, such as privileged candidates using these programmes to enhance their CVs.
On the other hand, among the non-privileged candidates, a sizeable proportion are underqualified, coming from non-target universities with low grades that do not meet the basic entry requirements for FO roles. Thus it is highly unlikely if near impossible that they will break in, so what's the point in letting them attend and take places from clearly more deserving candidates?
This raises an important question: where are the council estate kids who overcame challenge after challenge to achieve top grades and gain places at top-tier universities? Where are the children of refugees or single-parent households, who have had to work twice as hard to get to the same starting line? These are the candidates who should be supported by these initiatives, but they seem to be absent from the picture.
To be clear, I fully support the principles of DEI and the importance of making the industry more inclusive. However, the way these initiatives are being executed leaves me questioning whether they are truly helping the right people.
Curious to hear others’ thoughts or experiences on this. Have you noticed similar trends?
💯 execution is flawed by design. HR’s quick fix is to hire as many women as they can. Competency doesn’t matter at all.
I think I have seen someone so incompetent that they transcended this. It was a student from a super non-target university (think London Met/ Kingston/ South Bank), who tried to argue with me and then someone from HR, about whether the firm’s Spring Week was open or not (it was, she said it wasn’t). Something tells me she might have just landed herself on a certain list.
Great points, similar sentiment was on a post that was on here a few weeks ago. I hope SEO London team sees these and takes some feedback. Its getting ridiculous.
Also I never understood why firms like PJT do black only springs, if we are talking about DEI what systemic disadvantages do black people in the UK have that a working class Pakistani or Afghan does not have? Heck, as diversity myself I would say white working class men from forgotten towns like Huddersfield and Rotherham are probably more disadvantaged than the council flat "elite" of Zone 2 London
If you are a brown male then DEI is your worst enemy. Rich white males got their privilege while women (any color), Hispanic / blacks, and LGBTQ got DEI quotas. However, brown / Asian males and non-nepo whites have neither privilege nor the quotas to help them. Whatever is left over after nepotism and DEI is what they fight for. It is in your best interest to be against all sort of gender and DEI quotas, these are seats that you could have competed for. DEI doesn’t dent rich white / nepotism seats, they steal seats from hardworking males of color (ex. Black / Hispanics)
I did SEO in America and I imagine it's not too different. I think you make a lot of good points and DEI has it's flaws. Your first point is certainly correct and infuriates me as well. The privileged types are generally the ones who care the least about their career and bridging the gap. You can tell who they are just like you can tell who the nepo hires are. However, it makes sense why this ends up happening. To break into "high finance" you need to know that it exists and also pursue it. Which many people from underprivileged backgrounds do not. I didn't know what private equity was until my junior year and when I discovered it I was at a huge disadvantage during recruiting. My family's idea of finance was doing back office work similar to accounting. Many of these people are kids of doctors, lawyers, and businessmen who push their kids into more prestigious fields.
Regarding candidates being underqualified, I don't think we were less qualified than the average non-DEI applicant. The goal is to be "desk-ready" by the time you start, not necessarily during the interview process. We didn't get a ton of technical training until after we got a job offer. We had interview prep and regular calls, but compared to the second phase's technical training it wasn't much. I think this is something the program could do better. Lower standardized test scores is to be expected from underprivileged candidates. School has always been for the wealthy so why would the poor perform well? However, everyone still has to meet basic GPA requirements and pass an interview to be accepted into SEO. It's not like they accept everyone.
DEI has a disproportionate benefit towards the upper and middle classes compared to the lower class. Like I said earlier, you need to know high finance exists and be pushed to pursue it. People from the projects are less likely to do this than people who grew up in a more stable home. There is currently no mechanism to give the most underprivileged a leg up. At the end of the day, like you alluded to, these candidates need to have success in their role. They can't place people who don't have the right attitude or know nothing as it will tarnish the program's reputation. The end goal is for students to get these jobs and later in their careers improve their communities. So future generations will have more resources and less barriers.
You ignore a few key points,
1) companies are for-profit organizations and their job is not to alleviate economic / gender disparity. They are only doing this under severe pressure from left-leaning govts in the form various gender equity charters / handouts / legislations
2) DEI issue aggravates on the job when our analyst pool is ~30% female yet companies set ~50% gender quota in Associate and above promotions. This means a lot of below par females get elevated despite not putting in the sufficient effort required to succeed. Ultimately, this impacts the competency and efficiency of team as a quite a few competent males get pushed out.
3) DEI seats should not be more than 20%, and based on household income regardless of race, gender, and orientation
1. It can be argued that a corporation's purpose should be to benefit society and all stakeholders. Milton Friedman's arguments won't lead to long term success for society. Look at South Korea for example. It's on the verge of collapse.
2. I agree a 50% quota is silly if females represent a small number of applicants/employees.
3. I don't know if 20% is the right number, but I think going by income won't work in practice.
Our greatest strength:
dei FOREVER FREE PALESTINE HABIBI!
Quae earum ab sed dolores fuga. Inventore quis omnis omnis voluptatem deserunt iste. Officia error tempore quia maiores voluptas veniam velit. Sunt est tenetur dolor suscipit et cupiditate qui quo. Omnis ipsam voluptas quos ullam odio culpa excepturi.
Sed in qui exercitationem suscipit consequatur quam. Et ut quam veritatis in unde. Quae hic officiis fuga.
Harum officia enim in explicabo velit. Sed ducimus nulla eum necessitatibus nulla. Dolor officiis quae eum aspernatur assumenda.
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...