Why aren't Men entitled to diversity hiring? (Women are 60% of college students and 70% of high school valedictorians)
Clearly it's much harder to be a successful male student right now (those stats I posted are 100% facts).
More successful women to draw from.
Why aren't we using diversity programs to hire males. They are minorities by a 60% to 40% ratio at college campuses.
Who should I talk to at my bank to start this program?
You're gonna get a pile of MS, but your logic makes more sense than diversity hiring women because there are more men in the industry.
Break this down for me - there are much more men in finance than women. So you think his plan, to diversity hire MEN (when they're already the majority), makes sense?
ok.
Why are we targeting 50/50 male/female in finance?
Is the applicant pool 50/50 male/female? No.
Is the eligible pool 50/50 male/female? No.
Is career interest in finance 50/50 male/female? No.
Do people who study subjects relevant for finance (finance, business, economics, maths/eng for quant/trading etc.) split 50/50 male/female? No.
In all of the above, the population skews towards males.
-
Are there any female-dominated industries diversity hiring men? No.
Are there any "less glamorous" jobs (oil rig workers, prison guards, construction workers, plumbers) diversity hiring women? No.
Are there any female-dominated "glamorous" jobs (vets, pharmacists, academics) diversity hiring men? No.
Is the client base (e.g. assuming you're hiring for SS IB, facing PE clients) 50/50 male/female? No.
Is there any competition-driven or business-specific reason that there is a 50/50 target? No (obv. there are some ESG funds that only invest in companies with boards that have x% females etc. but we're assuming that this is only for grads)
-
So why is high finance aiming for 50/50?
I don't really care what target proportion it should or shouldn't be, nor am I arguing the merits of diversity hiring as a practice - my point is that if you're endorsing someone saying DIVERSITY hiring should be for men when there are already much more men than women in the workplace, the term 'diversity' no longer makes sense. Who cares if there are slightly more women at schools then men, hiring is done by the workplace who want diversity in the workplace. That's like saying banks should hire the 5 white students at Howard because they're underrepresented.
This is your definition of what defines "diversity" and it's backwards looking. Compensating for unequal gender distribution of the current workforce.
What if it should be defined as forward-looking?
Then using OP's silly reductio ad absurdum of more females with college education than males, we must assume diversity hiring must target the disadvantaged males.
-
I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy of gender-equal diversity recruiting.
To me, assuming all else equal, it makes less sense than diversity hiring from a lesser college-educated pool of candidates
expecting proponents of diversity discrimination to logically justify themselves is a fools errand. they are fighting to push straight white men out of power, and it is not, at its core, because they believe it logically makes sense. it is because it benefits them and their political views, and they will do whatever it takes to further their ideology.
Vel aut beatae magnam quis corrupti ipsam. Dignissimos ratione magni cupiditate totam minus aut sunt suscipit.
Numquam ullam ea ab esse porro facere tempore. Distinctio dicta facilis maiores quia ut officiis expedita. Vel impedit velit fugit exercitationem perspiciatis. Officia consequatur sint quam qui. Deleniti itaque voluptatem eligendi eaque voluptatem. Illum ut commodi hic hic.
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...