What is so meritocratic about IB ?
A lot of people on WSO like to talk about how they are against DEI and how IB is a meritocracy. I support meritocracy as well. I wish resumes could be completely anonymized and there were video interviews with cameras turned off.
How can IB be a meritocracy or finance be meritocratic when interviewers care about subjective things such as fit or personality. Same thing for getting promotions. I don't get what actually so meritocratic about IB.
Being likable and personable are part of being good at the job, especially as you move up.
its just that unfortunately some places give diversity hires an easier interview process. So this makes the process not all based on merit. Both people getting in just because of skin color and people having a connection from daddy are both issues. But DEI is an issue thats hot in the news right now and a lot of people who seek out IB tend to be white
i think the main reason people protest DEI more than nepo is because hiring a client's kid is direct addition to the bottom line so it at least makes business sense. Hiring based on skin color, sexuality, etc. isn't easy to quantify and link to a company's bottom line…if it actually does even help business like all these places claim.
Also, saw a lot of people with aggressive nepotism connections get rejected this year despite 3.9+ gpa, target, good experience while intersectional diversity candidates with 3.5-3.6, little/no experience got multiple offers, so it probably also is how aggressive places are with lowering the bar that pisses people off.
Yeah for sure man, everyone knows the first guy to get rejected is the HYPSM kid with a 3.9+ GPA at a target whose family is also well connected. That totally tracks. I bet the little black kid with one arm from Boise State with a 2.9 GPA got the GS TMT slot over the former lax playing son of a HF PM because of dIveRsiTy.
The fact that anyone upvoted your post shows just how ignorant some of you are. Do I need to spell out further why the target student with connections and a 3.9 GPA didnt get a top offer has nothing to do with the DEI? More likely than not your stats are made up as kids like this usually walk away with 3+ top IB offers, or the kid acted like he was God's gift to earth and / or showed up hungover strung out on addy and got a swift rejection.
The ratio of mediocre diversity candidates to mediocre nepo babies in IB might literally be like 10:1 or 20:1. I see diversity mediocrities daily, can’t name a single “his dad is CEO of XYZ” junior.
If you’re really good at politicking then you’ll succeed. Therein lays the meritocracy in IB (for the most part)
I would just like to go on the record to say that being a good fit or a likable person whenever you are working with the same people for 80 hours a week (literally more than half of my waking hours), is a HIGHLY meritorious thing to be. I value that GREATLY.
This is not some softy, frivolous prerequisite in order to exclude people for no good reason; this is an essential part of maintaining sanity under stressful conditions.
As to whether IB as a whole is meritorious, I don’t really care. What I will say is that “fit” is not some fluffy thing; it is a must-have trait if I’m going to be spending most of my waking life with you. Would you marry someone if they didn’t have “fit?” Why any different when I spend 80 hours with these sons of guns?
Maybe so
Watch the jay-z Kevin heart interview
the typical bro is raised to fit in. Not very meritocratic when taught from birth
Let’s grant for a moment that your argument is true: that “fit” is something that is culturally taught from a young age.
Even granting that, that doesn’t make it any less useful or meritorious. Dealing with people I like for the majority of my waking life is useful to me, regardless of how the person learned it.
Your comment to me that something is not “meritocratic” because it is “taught from birth” betrays your presumption that if something is learned through acculturation or is distributed unequally, then it must not be merit. This is not so. Various cultural adaptations may only be given to some, but that doesn’t make them any less useful.
Do you think finance is something that people naturally know? That it isn’t something taught to people?
Fit IS fluffy bullshit in the sense that its highly subjective and arbitrary. One person's annoying jackass is another man's likable and hilarious colleague.
How I got my taste in things is subjective. Whether that matters to me is a completely objective fact.
People like being around other people who are sufficiently similar to each other, and that’s okay. My office is more diverse than most offices, but our heads are in similar spots.
You know subjective and arbitrary aren’t antonyms of merit, right?
People from non-targets with a 3.5 can get in if they hustle and put in the work - you don't need to go to Harvard or have a 3.9 to get a job.
No job is going to eliminate personality as a judgment item, except maybe some deep quant roles where you're expected to sit on your computer and not talk to anyone... especially a job where you spend 80 hours a week working in an office with someone. You're also forgetting these are entry level jobs and honestly a pretty easy job skills-wise - anyone can pick up Excel with some training, so the hard skills aren't that important - what really matters is things like work ethic, grit, willingness to learn etc. Hard to get a full picture of any of that from a resume.
Because the world doesn’t run on meritocracy. Unfortunately, a 120lb short kid with confidence issue probably won’t be in front of a client. Banks have to look for what clients look for which unfortunately is typically looks, and personal wherewithal. Obviously it’s not everything, but there’s too much competition with 6’2 Chads for a lot of other people to make it. Just the reality of the situation.
Let's entertain your point of view for a moment. What type of bank (BB, EB, MM, etc...) do you think employs the best looking people?
By percent, I’d tend to say EB. By total volume I’d say BB.
Got it, so you’re living in a world where americas top models are lining the halls of BB/EBs?
Not surprised to see you’re unverified and likely haven’t stepped foot in a IB office.
I don’t agree 100% with that guy either but if you’re coming at someone’s verification status on WSO maybe it’s time to take a break from WSO
One of the kids (male) at my college who walked for Dolce & Gabbana in New York Fashion Week literally got an offer from a BB this cycle, not sure if there was any correlation between it, but his looks and the unique experience on his CV definitely helped.
I think that’s a bit of a strawman argument. I never said that only supermodels were at EB/BBs. In essence, my point was that banks have to care what their client facing employees look like because the clients cares. That’s an average, not every person, as I said.
How do you define merit?
It’s never going to be a “meritocracy” in how we typically perceive in college (GPA, extracurriculars, test scores, pure interview question responses) because it’s fundamentally a job based on personal relationships. You can give the exact same interview answer, but your “vibes” affect the perception of that answer. And those “vibes” include charisma but also are affected by attractiveness, height, gender, race, ethnicity, accent, wealth, weight, acne, athleticism etc. Which is why DEI invitatives are important, because otherwise an even stronger preference would be given to white, “old-money” men who are best positioned to relate to clients and existing senior employees. Although “diversity” programs today benefit groups that haven’t been able to produce as many qualified candidates for banking as representative of the population because of greater structural issues in the US, the shift away from exclusively rich white, prep school to Ivy league men opened doors to basically anyone else to be in this space. And it also makes business sense now that clients aren’t exclusively white, rich men.
This was a wonderful explanation of why diversity is needed tbh most banks need to sell it more like this
No industry is truly meritocratic in the sense that it isn't solely your output that determines how far you go. In jobs like IB - most corporate gigs really but I hear this from ALL of my friends currently in finance - you need to have people higher up on your side, vouching for you and fighting on your behalf and pushing your name. You need allies.
That's often the difference between getting that promotion or just a nice pat on the head.
I think meritocracy has always been way overblown since yes, you have to do well in your current role, but that’s just a check mark in the relevant box, and ultimately what gets you promoted and in good standing is your relationships with your peers / bosses. Also echoing (as someone who’s made this mistake several times and didn’t think it was that important) that culture / fit is massively important which is related to office politics, since being in a toxic firm dealing with people you don’t like for hours on end is torture.
If you want meritocracy go to a public markets investing role where you know your P&L every day (depending on how your PM does things).
Anyone claiming that only the best and brightest succeed in banking has either never worked in the industry or blind.
This post shows a complete lack of understanding of what matters in the workplace. 'Fit and personality' are by far the most important characteristics of any prospective team member. The reality is that hundreds of candidates are able to do the job well but fit determines how well a team works together. Personality matters are you will spend 1/3 of your life with the people you work with.
Recusandae voluptatem sunt repudiandae ipsum facere sed maiores. Debitis qui placeat suscipit vel voluptatem autem facilis.
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...
Quia aut dolorem facere. Molestias dolorem nisi adipisci assumenda rerum quis deleniti.
Vitae ipsa reiciendis modi qui aperiam eos. Aut dolores sed soluta facere eum ipsa voluptas expedita. Ipsam ipsam deserunt a eum debitis ut eos. Molestiae autem non expedita sit.
Tempora velit porro velit labore. Doloribus consequatur natus aliquam rerum temporibus repellat mollitia. Enim laboriosam pariatur debitis voluptas quisquam omnis eveniet.