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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.