Targets represented in senior management?
I've done some browsing around LinkedIn, and noticed that a lot of the topin London tend to have odd backgrounds. Most graduated from an evident non-target with a fairly non-standard degree (e.g. English), with a few maybe having a top . The only 'target' I saw frequently pop up (around 3 times) is Bocconi.
It changes for some companies.for example is pretty much exclusively /LSE/Other European/Other American Targets. But a lot of banks I've noticed are like this.
What is the reason for this?
I can think of these:
1) At the time, banking was way less selective and having a degree was 'having an edge'. People got lucky getting into the right industry at the right time and worked hard.
2) Those from targets left for 'greener' pastures (not sure how many roles are better than a GS Partner though).
3) Target schools had less hardos, and people from these schools were more likely to either come from money or just were not interested in banking at all.
4) Target kids got burnt out - those from non-targets who got in by showing exceptional dedication and/or a reduced ego were able to outlast target kids.
5) Selection bias - maybe those in more meritocratic fields (e.g. trading) are more likely to be active on LinkedIn?
6) Target kids as a whole will have more people interested in just the monetary aspect. Those who don't enjoy the work (from entrance rates, more as an absolute figure) will have retired a few years into MD.
7) Diversity reasons in upper management? Looks bad having 'non-inclusive' leaders?
I'm not discrediting this individuals at all (not that they would give a shit). Obviously making partner is a hell of an achievement, perhaps even more so from a non-cookie cutter background.
Where did the target kids end up though?