Why are banks hiring less qualified candidates?
Does anyone know why all of these firms are offering SA programs where the interview questions are always easier? From peers who went though the process I know the questions they ask diversity candidates at bofa & gs, and I’ve done regular SA superdays at both. The diversity candidates are being held to a much lower standard and I was curious as to why? Wouldn’t that hurt the bank in the long run? Why aren’t these global leaders hiring the most skilled individuals?
Federal tax credits and internal comp incentives for hitting those quotas
Because years of divisive foreign propaganda that bombards the country 24/7 have made identity politics the primary concern in nearly every aspect of American life. I wonder who possibly benefits from a continual lowering of American standards in academia, medicine, business, etc.? Hope y'all are taking mandarin lessons.
ong, if i said this outloud at my undergrad id be skinned alive
It doesn’t shock me that white men equate hiring of anyone else who doesn’t look like them to “lowering standards”
It’s amazing that the most privileged group of people in the history of the universe can’t fathom that others can be just as competent as they are.
So the media creates a narrative that minorities specifically black and brown people are not smart so they diminish the hard work of those those have struggled to break generational barriers to get to where they are.
Systemic racism is a bastard
Then why are universities shitting themselves and looking for admission loopholes when the Supreme Court overturns Affirmative Action?
Asians, Indians, and Whites on average have higher scores than other groups. Just cause these groups perform well/ had better opportunities years ago, does not mean you should fuck the kids today.
You do realize not every white male has a family friend in high finance. Diversity programs aren't killing nepotism, just the other white kids who struggle as much as them to find an opportunity.
At my old firm (EB), the question list was the exact same for diversity and non-diversity candidates. We valued diversity a lot, but it was viewed as a way to make it easier to get in front of an interviewer, not get easier questions.
At our firm, the questions for div and non-div candidates are the same. HR asks me to do interviews all the time and I don't see any differences. In fact, I am not even allowed to change anything at all when conducting interviews, for any candidate.
Must not have worked in SA recruiting for Barclays NY. Can confirm they have a very different question list based on gender alone.
Early consensus seems to support weak candidates blame minorities for their shortcomings
The questions are typically the same but the slack given to people for their answers is very different. And it’s not just technicals, the delta in GPA is also significant.
I’m still not entirely sure how it’s legal, the practices at every bank are very blatantly discriminatory with the degree of discrimination being the only differentiator.
I used to agree that “I lost the job to a less qualified diversity candidate” isn’t the way to look at it but… no, you literally might have. I see it happen every recruiting season at both the analyst and associate level. Non-diversity male candidates who would have been high in the stack in 2006 or whatever get no offered because they’re trying to meet a diversity target set by HR.
Those diversity candidates then turn you down because they have 5 other offers given how high the industry is bidding up mediocrity for social goals, and you’re left trying to fill spots from an already thin diversity talent pool.
Result is that everyone VP and below gets cranked because there aren’t enough reliable people around and the handful of trustworthy people get grabbed for everything important until they burn out and ragequit.
The entire system is transparently insane
Delete. Thread's blowing up too much.
Can't lie- I did not see a lot of Linkedin posts about summer 2024 offers from white males.
So qualified means white male? Stop playing. This question is biased. For the most part, people who deserve roles do get it. This is not 1990
Can anyone confirm if PJT actually gave 10k signing bonuses to diverse candidates and no signing bonus to non-diverse for SA 2024? Saw it on another post and am wondering if it's true or not lol
Holy shit what, how is this not illegal?
20 years ago my buddy and his wife (then bf and gf) both got jobs as engineers for a major defense contractor. She made like 20% more for the exact same role in the same group. They both still work there.
This is a supply and demand question. There are fewer diversity and female candidates, therefore the truly good ones should deserve more.
Diversity is of course a good thing, where the candidates are qualified. It is of course right for diverse candidates to be given chances for interview. This should not be a controversial; there is nothing wrong with having a diverse workforce. In Europe, this is very much how it works, diverse candidates tend to get more chances for interviews but the expectations and interview questions are the same; we do not hire incompetent candidates.
The problem seems to be that in America, "diversity" is treated as a tick-box rather than genuinely seeking out the best talent. Look, I understand that if certain people don't have the pedigreed financial knowledge of some target students because of whatever socioeconomic factors; this is an 'apprentice' job, you can learn everything you need on the job and you can be trained to be successful, you don't really need to know much going in. But where the issues arise is recruiting people who have little understanding of the industry or what they are applying for, or that they have little interest in staying.
In short, diversity is desirable for a firm. Opportunities for advancement should not be gatekept, and it makes good business. It makes sense to have Spanish speakers for LATAM deals, it makes sense to have Arabic speakers for ME deals etc etc. Finance should not be an "old boys's club" where you are successful because your parents goes to the same boating club as the MD. It is good that diverse backgrounds are getting looks and interviews. What is bad about the (American) diversity recruitment process is it focusses FAR MORE on "traits" rather than actual merit. Being diverse and being very bright and competent are of course not mutually exclusive, and candidates should be held to the same standard as each other. Here, the US could take a page out of the EMEA playbook by:
Lots to do, ladies and gents. But diversity? That is not the problem, that is desirable and makes us stronger. The issue is treating diversity as a trait-based tick-box. Don't do that.
Agreed, diversity in offices is good. Hiring processes should emphasize diversity and also still seek to find strong candidates rather than overemphasizing traits.
I'm a mix of several races, but I am undoubtedly half-white. The disparity between my applications where I listed my race as white vs mixed (White/Asain/Pacific Islander) is disgusting.
Its a shame to see American society become such a joke.
It seems to me the stereotypical reason that white people view diversity is that the diversity candidates are less smart, which is 100% opposite of the truth. White males always think they are the smartest people in the room and we all know that’s not true. We don’t need to ruin the white man’s fragile ego by letting him think that somebody else could be as smart as him. You have the stereotype that black and brown people are less smart than white or Asians, and reading the bigoted statements within the comments just goes to prove what you think about black and brown people. Most of you will read this and say I didn’t mean anything, you’re reading it wrong, but put the shoe on the other foot and listen to how you guys are being very condescending towards people that don’t look like you. Investment banking is dominated by white males, and for some reason you think if the population of the company is less than 99.9% white you feel threatened and you make stupid comments on social media. This is got to stop you guys don’t even hear what the hell you’re saying. The worst part is you all are talking to each other trying to justify your statements. I have many friends that work in investment banking and everything I’m saying is exactly the truth because they’re living it on a daily basis watching you guys bring in less qualified white people, but pretend that the rocket scientist. I see the resumes all the time and most of them are jokes but 99.9% of the ones that are hired are white. The other interesting comment was that the questions have to be dumb down, when you were interviewing, the questions were harder. They weren’t harder. You just didn’t have the experience or the knowledge to answer the questions back then, but now you’ve worked so many years in banking you think you’re a rocket scientist.
Diversity of income is a lot more important than diversity of skin color or gender. Most of the diversity candidates I've met are more connected to high finance, well off, and offer less diverse thought than me as a middle class white man.