Target vs. Non-Target
One thing that's very disheartening to read on this forum is the bias against kids from targets. Apparently, kids from targets just happened to be privileged enough to get into a good school while kids from non-targets unfairly get screwed. I'm sorry, but when did working hard in high school and middle school become "privileged"? I know some outstanding kids at non-targets and mediocre kids at targets, but the kids here who attack targets on here honestly sound like OWS. 99% of the spots in banking are filled with 1% of schools!!!!!!
Listen: If I'm looking at Harvard 3.6 Poli Sci with no real internships, and a Non-Target 3.6 Finance with boutique IBD internships, I'm taking the former ALL DAY (assuming that he's sociable, knows what IBD is, etc.). Why? Because I know that Harvard kid was motivated enough to spend 4 years in high school working his ass off, getting 2300+ SATs and 3.9+ GPAs and leading sports teams while the Non-Target kid made some cold-calls to random boutiques and got lucky. Yes, you can argue the whole "can't afford Harvard" or "rich parents made donations" angle (and I ABSOLUTELY sympathize with the kids who couldn't afford to go to Stern or GTown or some other low-financial aid school), but generally speaking, most targets are actually incredibly generous with financial aid and development cases make up a tiny portion of the population (and those kids get hooked up anyway). In fact coming from a poor background helps you get into Harvard.
Just my rant. To quote someone from this forum, "it's not a silver spoon if you've earned it." I'm not bashing non-target kids in anyway (the ones I've met in banking are terrific), just the ones who paint the Ivies with the same broad stroke.