People who hate diversity hires, Catch 22 - You wouldn't have made it anyway

I see a lot of people complaining that subpar diversity candidates are taking their jobs in high finance roles and they don't deserve it etc. The funny thing that these people who make these complaints fail to realize that if GS or any other BB chose to pick a dumb blonde or black candidate with a 3.0 GPA over you, you likely wouldn't have even got to the interview stages if you were competing with only white, male, charismatic, rich and connected applicants. 

If banks get rid of these diversity quotas like a lot of you are hoping for, I hope you know your seat will still be taken by a trust fund baby (some of whom might be black or female) who now wouldn't give a shit about your plight due to nepotism having a stronger hold on hiring than racism. 

I hope you know that banks do not care that you can do a paper LBO, THEY WILL hire Aliko Dangote's and Robert F Smiths son or daughter and distant relatives over you in a heartbeat no matter what race you are. 

At least with a lot of diversity hires they are sensitive to the struggles of coming from a small town or not growing up rich so they will have that coffee with you or look past the fact that your suit doesn't fit well. 

If we actually get to the point that there are no more mandated diversity hires, if you can't get into banking right now forget about it forever. Banks wouldn't even do OCR anymore. 

This is like people saying they want to go back to the good old days of the 50s and 60s because they think they'll be these aggressive alpha's, who women will be swooning over and bossing around minorities while they will be living like Gatsby, forgetting that they can't even throw a punch, are barely 5'5 and 120 pounds and do not come from American or British Aristocracy. You would likely have been in a mine digging for gold or diamonds or working on railroads before getting TB then dying a painful death. 

Even though I am black, I can understand if you are from a white, rich and historically connected family and wanting to bring back those "good old days" of banking and society because for you it really was better, but anyone else clamoring for it is beyond foolish and short sighted.

Edit: Hate to name drop but if you don't believe me, email Zachary Dell and a minority at Blackstone asking for a call or coffee and watch who will give you their time of day

 
Most Helpful

People are annoyed because they watch inferior candidates moonwalk through recruiting and they see it as unfair. You've set up a strawman to justify to yourself the massive unearned advantage you received. The vast majority of diversity candidates i've seen were extremely privileged. Oh wow, your parents were biglaw partners and doctors and you grew up in a very pleasant upper middle class suburb. I bet life was difficult. With Hispanic diversity candidates it's even more egregious. You can be the child of Latin American oligarchs and still get the huge diversity bump. What you have now is privileged kids of nepotism getting spots and diversity candidates (most of whom were also privileged) getting the rest. So who gets boxed out? Mostly white and asian men without connections from middle class or poor backgrounds. You can be a second generation Asian kid living in actual poverty and get no credit for your struggles, but a black kid whose parents were rich gets the red carpet rolled out for him. Does that seem fair to you? 

This is pure grift. Take every advantage you can grab, but don't pretend it's anything else. 

 
Controversial

You immediately assumed I received some sort of advantage when recruiting, even though I do not come from a rich family and was asked technical questions on DCFs and Corporate Finance during my internship and there were other non diverse applicants during the internship who literally asked what the NASDAQ and S&P 500 were and did not understand the concept. 

Now when it comes down to it, in all seriousness, who do you think will be more sympathetic to you if we were to cross paths, me or the obvious millionaire country club kid who did not know what indexes were during a banking internship. Because he was literally a pompous dick who looked down on anyone who did not go skiing on Mont Blanc as a kid.

Thats my point, arguing that you want more of these people in positions of power will hurt you more than you can think. 

 

Did you get a sophomore internship at a major reputable firm?

If yes: stop pretending it wasnt a benefit for you and accept that there is a high likelihood that you benefited directly from the internship not available to the vast majority of students.

If no: you are a proof that miracles happen, and you have to accept that diversity was a/the deciding factor in your employment.

Regardless, stop moaning that people dont like the idea of you benefitting in the employment process because of immutable characteristics you have out of no choice or act of your own. There is no diversity hiring for people with abusive parents, single parents, non-parent guardians who suffered far more than the rest of us. Diversity programs are cheap corprate speal designed to pre-select members of minority groups to meet arbitrary diversity standards to avoid being accused of being racist or sexist or whatever else, they are not God's work encouraging underprivileged to seek careers in finance.

 

Believe it or not, you are not smarter or better qualified than "diversity" candidates for a bank job. You're just socialised to believe that. Diversity has been created as a glorified system (and by that I mean it's just fluff) where companies show that they are making up for all the past disenfranchisement of these diverse groups. Many of these candidates go through the same process/questions you go through. They take the very best those candidates and they often have some unique story/motivation and I don't mean working at their Uncle's hedge fund. You gotta ask, what is so special about banking at an analyst level that makes you more qualified? You went to an ivy league school and so the best jobs should be retained for you? Sounds very entitled, doesnt it? That's privilege, many of which these folks got because these "diverse" canadiates you're referring to didn't have an equal chance at looking back at historical context.

If it all boiled down to asking questions about backgrounds, motivations, interests and techicals - would you think you were more qualified? The same candidates go through internships in what is probably not the most of comfortable environment, culture wise (go figure), and end up getting full time offers. You think the banks gave them return offers even if they were bad?

Funny how you aren't making any reference to the non-POC folks who get in out of sheer privilege (and opportunities they create for the bank) but will attack other groups based on diversity. They'll even give a pass to the "diverse" veteran and diverse white woman.

You'd think that the above will make some of you rethink your views, including where they stem from but it will be no surprise if you stuck with the gross lack of awareness. It's up to you to continue to hold on to what I call "fake outrage", which essentially is - why should a diverse POC get a job over me?.....just as it's was openly expressed not that long ago. It's so funny how some other groups have fallen into the trap of going after each other especially black folks to justify their own situation. "son of rich black folks vs second generation poor asian". It's such a shame. I am sure you will get the support to justify your annoyance even if the original post never made any reference to this. Also, assuming these people wee dumb and just had jobs handed over to them (which is false), I wouldn't put Asians into an historically disenfranchised group in America. Hence, it's unclear why you are so upset at the wrong groups. You should probably rethink/recreate your hypothesis.

 

I know most of the students that went through finance recruiting from my college last year and they were not disadvantaged growing up. One girl had parents at a top law firm. I'm guessing most other kids had rich parents too because many of them went to top private high schools. There's also Latino kids that look exactly like a white person that claim diversity. In addition, diversity requirements are much lower and technicals are easier or nonexistent. This is what the other students told me. What proves that diversity is just for publicity is the lack of low income/first gen programs. Low income/first gen is considered in college admissions but never in hiring in IB. These students are the ones that benefit the most, yet there are almost no programs for them. Banks just want to be able to take a pic of the incoming analysts and show shareholders that they are only diverse in physical appearance.

 

So let me get this straight. You're bothered that wealthy black kids get a chance at recruitment because they fall within the categories of disavantaged groups based on race. So recruiters should ask every POC for their family's wealth status and bank reports? I don't see how it's hard to undestand that people falling into a collective group that had almost identical experiences shouldn't have the same chance under that very basis. You can have other programs for lower classed folks etc.

The most jaring this here is latinos that look white. How intelectually deficient do you have to be to raise such an argument. If you wee saying that they werent infact latinos but were claiming to be, that would have been a valid concern. 

You may have a good point about how the banks' intent/outcomes. However, the entire argument is just incomprehensible.

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/41/10870

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-i…

Dozens of studies done since the 80's through 2021 have shown that if a black guy and a white guy send the exact same resume out, the white guy is more likely to be called back and this pattern hasn't really changed in recent years.  I'm not sure where these reports of banks collecting minority resumes like "rare pokemon cards" are coming from.  Especially since banks are more conservative leaning than many of the other fortune 500 companies.

https://blogs.sas.com/content/sastraining/2018/05/31/fortune-500-30-big…

 

1. The people on here who complain about diversity and affirmative action will be much more likely to notice events that fit in with that particular bias, the same way someone in d&i might be more likely to notice racism in the office

2. A diverse candidate who performs poorly on a team for a few years is much more noticeable than a highly qualified, diverse candidate who gets rejected before the first interview.  Most of the time it is unconscious bias.

 

I don't really doubt that in certain jobs (see: shitty, low end jobs with prole hiring managers) they don't give a fuck about woke ideology and just go with their heuristic that black workers tend to be worse, which impacts black hiring. But that isn't really what we're talking about here. We're discussing a very specific, selective industry that many people here have experience with. And it's objectively true that non-Asian minorities sail through the process much more easily than other groups. So do women. 

I'm not sure why something that obvious is up for discussion. Everyone who has gone through the process or who has been on the hiring side knows it. 

 

I don't disagree with OP's point that a lot of the people who complain about diversity hiring greatly overestimate its effect on them personally. However, claiming that it has no impact on the margin is similarly not credible.

I'm not opposed to all forms of "diversity hiring", but the current practice based on continental/national origin is morally and legally indefensible. And should be changed.

 
gjk

I don't disagree with OP's point that a lot of the people who complain about diversity hiring greatly overestimate its effect on them personally. However, claiming that it has no impact on the margin is similarly not credible.

I'm not opposed to all forms of "diversity hiring", but the current practice based on continental/national origin is morally and legally indefensible. And should be changed.

I mean, the alternative is to go back to prioritizing rich white guys whose dads play golf with the hiring MD.  There has always been a bias towards certain groups - diversity hiring today is just the pendulum swinging back the other way from (checks notes) all of American history, where white people got a foot in the door that minorities didn't.

 

I don't want to debate diversity hiring, but you're basically saying that if it wasn't for it, banks would exclusively hire based on nepotism. That's just a non sequitur and I don't think it proves your point at all.

 
DeWitt23

I don't want to debate diversity hiring, but you're basically saying that if it wasn't for it, banks would exclusively hire based on nepotism. That's just a non sequitur and I don't think it proves your point at all.

I don't think it's debatable that banks (and everyone else) hires based on nepotism or cronyism.  For most of the history of Wall Street, being Jewish or black or Catholic was enough to ding you off the list of potential hires for most banks.  That was the way things were.  So when someone tells you they want to get rid of diversity hiring, what they're saying that they want to start keeping certain groups out of the financial community.  There was never a time when Wall Street was meritocratic, so complaining about a certain type of bias in hiring isn't a complaint about bias, it is a complaint that the bias isn't helping whoever is talking.

 

Removing diversity programs doesn't mean going back to when jews and blacks were banned from a job on Wall Street. (wtf ??) I always try to stay polite when we are discussing something, but that's such an incredibly stupid take that I don't know how you could ever write that seriously. It's like you're aguing against something you imagined in your head or something.

 

Like I said, I am British aristocracy (Eton -> Magdalen PPE -> CVP/PJT/Rothschild -> Rhodes Scholar MPhil Econ ChCh -> MBB -> W MBA -> APO -> MP/Senator equiv+).

Minorities were never a threat to my job. I don't want them in similar jobs as mine because I don't want to smell, hear, see or taste them, period. 

 

I like that you're aware enough to express your deep seated racism, unlike many of these other clowns that hide behind liking posts that fit in with their (un)conscious bias, lack of self awareness and/or sheer ignorance about both history and present time structures.

Also pretty sure that you're pumped about the fact that the entire premise of your supposed status is based on taking advantage of these groups that you detest so much.

 

Daily reminder that liberals were never against racism. As Op shows, they are more than happy to justify racial exclusion from jobs and economic oppression. They just really fucking hate white people. May Russian nukes salvage humanity.

Never discuss with idiots, first they drag you at their level, then they beat you with experience.
 

Neink, here's what I don't get. You are a white guy, correct? Please explain something here to me as I'm an Asian guy. It's pretty clear that certain URM groups hate white people or at least want to take advantage of them (primarily blacks). At least 1/3 of Hispanics actually vote Republican (and this is growing quite rapidly) while >90% of blacks always vote Democratic because these are the people that are helping them take advantage of the system at the exclusion of others. But crucially, whites are >60% of the U.S. population.

So why in the world do white people turn out in such large numbers for the alt left? Don't they realize they are literally just screwing themselves? These people are voting Against their interests so consistently and I have no idea why. As a group, if you are white you can consistently outvote everyone else. Yet they don't do that and they're destroying what was once a beautiful economic engine. Why is this? To be very clear, I'm not asking this as some kind of straw man -- I'm genuinely puzzled by this, was just discussing this with a buddy a few weeks ago and we have no clue why. Best guess is the alt left ideology from colleges / universities which have indoctrinated people but even then it doesn't answer the question -- much of this was created by & perpetuated by white professors in the past 3-4 decades. So it still begs the question. Any thoughts? 

Good news is Russia / China are now powerful enough to give the middle finger to America and it's moronic ideologies. Latin America gives no crap / MEA doesn't care (at least they have their religion to hold strong vs these waves of idiocy), I don't even think Africa remotely cares about this stuff as they have their own problems. It's literally just Western Europe / U.S. / Canada that are destroying themselves from the inside. Which at the end of the day will only hurt them while other societies rise but it's kind of tragic to see 

 

Guilt and indoctrination from schools and media starting at a young age. The institutions of education and media are overwhelming left.

"The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous rather than cowardly" - Robert A. Wilson | "If you don't have any enemies in life you have never stood up for anything" - Winston Churchill | "It's a testament to the sheer belligerence of the profession that people would rather argue about the 'risk-adjusted returns' of using inferior tooth cleaning methods." - kellycriterion
 

Nienk is not even American, and I don't think he's ever visited America either.  He learns everything about this country from 4chan.  

Why do some white people vote for the left?

1. Healthcare.  The right tried to increase healthcare prices by 6k a year in MAGA country where the average income is 30k-40k a year.  That would crush the very people that voted for them.

trumpcare

2. Jobs.  The right does nothing about the crazy price of education in this country.  They say "learn a trade" but then they also crush unions and ruin the wages in industries that don't need degrees.

3. Economy.  Most of the debt created in this country is from right wing wars and tax cuts for the rich.  They blow trillions and trillions that NEVER trickle down and then cry about the budget and inflation when the Democrats try and pass bills that actually help people.  This chart is old and it doesn't include the massive 2017 tax cut which blew up deficits even more.  Their tax cuts actually resulted in tax hikes for high income people in cities aka most of WSO.

right economy

So no, it's the right who votes against their own interests.  Please tell me one right wing policy that has helped average people.  One.

 

ResMan

But it's the professional-managerial class people - the affluent urban and inner suburban NPR listeners and Whole Foods shoppers - who are the white people most likely to vote for the left. That's the opposite of what you'd predict if you thought their voting patterns were based on pragmatic economic concerns. 

If you're expecting on of the biggest ultra-progressive leftoids on this site to make an intelligent and cogent argument you're in for a trip. "Rightg win wars" as if it wasn't Democrats that have continued them every step of the way, started more new ones while putting vastly more tax dollars into the war machine, and are continuing to bang the drums to get more conflicts on the table. Not to even begin to touch on the internal culture attack on basic Western values, stoking of racial divides, and destruction of the working class with unchecked illegal immigration and policies favoring big business (e.g. Citizens United v. FEC was Obama). Democrats under Obama are also the ones who joined hands with Saudi Arabia in blockading what was already the poorest nation in the Middle East, Yemen, and carrying out a war campaign that is on par with literal genocide with hundreds of thousands of children being literally starved to death (of course the corporate media never talks about that one because surprise, they're mostly Democrats). 

Just look at his monkey shit ratio and realize trying to have any sort of conversation with this utter clown is a lost cause. He's just some CS grad student who's never lived in or interacted with the real world outside NYC or his academic echo chamber. 

"The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous rather than cowardly" - Robert A. Wilson | "If you don't have any enemies in life you have never stood up for anything" - Winston Churchill | "It's a testament to the sheer belligerence of the profession that people would rather argue about the 'risk-adjusted returns' of using inferior tooth cleaning methods." - kellycriterion
 

Citizens United v. FEC was Obama

😂😂😂😂😂😂 Please explain to me what the Supreme Court does and what the President does.  Here's a hint: Obama was not a Supreme Court Justice, but rather a president.  Daddy must have got you that private equity job, there's no WAY someone this dumb could get it on their own.  Every immigrant to the US has to pass a citizenship test and some of the questions are about what each branch of government does, congrats on knowing less about your own country than all of them despite being born here.

(By the way, all the YES votes on Citizens United were from justices appointed by Republicans.  All the NAY votes but Stevens, who switched sides as the Republican party veered to the right were from justices appointed by Democrats.  Another example of right wing idiocy)

 
Funniest

Drumpfy

Citizens United v. FEC was Obama

😂😂😂😂😂😂 Please explain to me what the Supreme Court does and what the President does.  Here's a hint: Obama was not a Supreme Court Justice, but rather a president.  Daddy must have got you that private equity job, there's no WAY someone this dumb could get it on their own.  Every immigrant to the US has to pass a citizenship test and some of the questions are about what each branch of government does, congrats on knowing less about your own country than all of them despite being born here.

(By the way, all the YES votes on Citizens United were from justices appointed by Republicans.  All the NAY votes but Stevens, who switched sides as the Republican party veered to the right were from justices appointed by Democrats.  Another example of right wing idiocy)

A ruling passed under Obama, pushed by the uniparty political establishment's will under Obama to support the uniparty's lobbyist interests, on a decision originally predicated on a case started over an Anti-Clinton movie which NBC openly discusses. The idea that just because it was conservatives who voted on it means that it wasn't entirely supported and advocated for by the mainstream Democrats, who have been the major corporate party since Clinton, is laughable. But sure, we'll pretend SCOTUS is completely apolitical. And I'm so sure every single one of the 1m+ illegals that have streamed over the boarder and been flown around the country (Psaki Confirms Illegal Immigrants Being Flown to New York in Dead of Night) and millions more that have congregated in states like California all took citizen tests and are on top of their government compliance! 

You're so utterly pathetic Drumpfy it honestly stopped being amusing 6+ months ago. I would pity you if you weren't such a self-righteous twat but here we are. 

"The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous rather than cowardly" - Robert A. Wilson | "If you don't have any enemies in life you have never stood up for anything" - Winston Churchill | "It's a testament to the sheer belligerence of the profession that people would rather argue about the 'risk-adjusted returns' of using inferior tooth cleaning methods." - kellycriterion
 

I’m on mobile so my response won’t be as lengthy or structured like the usual. Feel free to ask for clarification and I’ll explain more tomorrow.

1) Which policy is this specifically referring to? The source appears to be “Alaska division of elections” which makes me confused whether this policy actually had a national scope or not.

2) GOP states overwhelmingly have a cheaper cost of college on average

https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-state

The northeast and the PNW have the worst prices on average. This doesn’t even account for the fact that the best schools have substantially higher tuitions then even their averages, whereas state universities typically fo not.

Also you’ve not explained what Democrats are doing to lower the cost of education. 

3) The way I’m seeing the graph most of the debt is accumulated during Obama’s 8 years. What exactly is your argument here?

To your final question how are you defining policy? We could talk about how Trump paused student loan payments during the pandemic or his stimulus payments to those affected. You brought up the vaccine. I would also argue Trump pushing us to energy independence for the first time in 75 years https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_energy_independence

had a material impact on the average consumer before Biden reversed that.

Not a single international conflict was started under Trump. Obviously that has a huge impact on the average person .He was also got us out of several conflicts and see in motion the pieces to get us out kf Afghanistan and Iraq. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States. The conflicts start dates end at 2015. 
I’m not defending Bush because he’s a neocon.

Array
 

1) It's pretty clear that certain URM groups hate white people or at least want to take advantage of them (primarily blacks).

Not true. The most vicious, borderline genocidal, unjustified hatred comes from white liberals. This is pretty blatant by looking at the white-bashing in the media and the authors. Overwhelmingly white women or LGBTIAQP. And boy, you really don't want to look at the profiles of the few straight white men involved, especially their crime history.

2) So why in the world do white people turn out in such large numbers for the alt left?

Same reason 50% (yes it's that high) of them claims to suffer from mental illnesses. Also the same reason many of them make up gender and sexual identities on daily basis, and finally, it's the same reason as Rachel Dolezhal. They are nuts.

For the rest, I agree.

Never discuss with idiots, first they drag you at their level, then they beat you with experience.
 

We all very well see how white people love black people. They loved them so much they enslaved people and used free labour to create the wealth (and banks) for white people you see today...and all the other events that followed. Before you go off and say, what about the poor white kids etc, reflect on how  how lack of opportunities can be based on completely different things. For one group, it was based on what they looked like and how they had no rights or access to education (banned from reading for centuries and jailed/killed if caught), banned from access to financing their counterparts had to buy property and do business......and so on and so forth.

It always makes me laugh and cringe at the same time when I see a POC ingratiating towards white people. It's almost like you've perfected the art of being an administrator. It's also as if there's an attempt to rewrite the order of historical events. It appears you think the world started when you were born . I'd like to hear what your asian grandparents think about your comment, that's if you're who you say you are anyway.

You'll definitely get those likes here on WSO where the order of the day is to express the insecurities that stem from the realization that white people aren't inherently better than others as they were lied to, so as to justify all their attrocities. Hence the fragility, guilt and confusion that creates this hyperfocus on POCs.

You should take history classes.

 

Just like everything in life, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I think diversity programs are justified in the sense that hiring managers subconsciously hire people that they can relate to. The 50-year-old MD at Goldman will hire the rich country club kid that can talk about golf over the kid from rural Georgia 100% of the time — even if they have identical qualifications. That’s not to mention that on an average basis, diversity candidates (excluding Latino royalty) have to overcome a lot more shit in life than the privileged white guys.

All of that being said, I’ve personally seen a ton of diversity candidates cakewalk through the IBD interview process with little effort. Sure, most people bitching about diversity programs are using it to justify why they didn’t get an offer (even though they’re objectively unqualified), but there’s anecdotal evidence everywhere that less-qualified diversity candidates are hired over highly-qualified white dudes.

It’s easy to see why this would infuriate the white dudes on the margin who are getting turned down for something they can’t control. However, you have to put yourself in the mindset of the decision-makers to understand why these programs exist. While 10% of the support behind these programs comes from a genuine place to help those who face a historical disadvantage, I strongly feel that 90% of it has selfish motives… So they can look good and keep their jobs.

If you’re a white MD faced with all of the scrutiny placed on the corporate world (especially banking) amid the social justice climate, what better way to keep your job (or even get promoted) than advocating for more diversity? It’s the perfect “I’m not racist, I hire a ton of [Place demographic here] individuals.” And don’t get it twisted, David Solomon would be LIVID if a slightly less-qualified diversity hire was chosen for CEO. But, why would he give a shit what’s happening at the junior levels?

Again, it’s not a coincidence that these diversity programs are only present at the most public and highly-scrutinized firms. They’re a way to appease the politicians and public at large while nothing really changes at the top levels. You’re crazy if you think that diversity programs exist at MFs and not MMPE funds just because the executives at MFs are kinder, more generous people than those at the MM firms. Both executives don’t actually give a flying fuck, but those at bigger firms have to at least appear to give a shit.

Finally, to those that have built up resentment towards those diversity candidates that do walk through recruiting, cut it out. You’d be clinically insane to expect someone not to take every advantage they’re given. It’s not their fault that the programs exist. Your resentment should go towards the coward managers who care more about the company brochure than actually leveling the playing field (by, for example, having a first gen or low income program).

 

I think you left one small thing out that i heard from a conservative boss i once had, a lot of the MD's were not left wing but they enforced stringent diverse hires. 

He was very straight to the point and loved trump and a lot of libertarian ideas, even though me saying he was right wing is kind of an over exaggeration. 

Once over drinks I asked him why the company was so diverse given the politics of a lot of the bosses due to the stuff they spoke about. He said as he got older he realised more diverse groups are more efficient and work better which in turn makes it more profitable.

If banks were losing money or profitability by hiring so called sub par minorities it would stop, a lot of these guys arguing against stuff like this will do a 360 in a few years when they are MD or VP and the white boy group they amassed start imploding they can't delegate tasks even to the intern because the interns parents go to their church and the analysts come at 10 and leave at 4 because their dad is a client of the company. 

 

Just be aware that if you are a black guy in finance, most people will assume you got in through AA vs. merit. Getting special favors for the color of your skin is not going to win you many friends in this profession where everyone isn't "woke" to alt left propaganda 

 

LMAO, idgaf what they "assume" and if they like me or not, I was top bucket anyway even though i just started and a lot of them are burnt out and leaving the office at 6pm and we are barely a year in. 

The people killing it at my firm among juniors cut across race and gender and if the ones that are stumbling thought i got in easily, they should choke on their tears because I am performing where it matters and i'll do so as aggressively as possible. 

Plus I have a vibrant as hell social life outside of work and actually don't want them to like me, i am too busy

 

You're only "making it" because the system pushed other people down (whites and Asians) to bring you up. When I see a black guy's resume, I given them an interview slot but find ways to not hire them (unless they're truly good which almost never happens). Would much rather give the spot to a kid who earned it on his own 

 

You said it yourself that you "find ways" not to hire them, alluding to the fact that you contort what might have happened in that interview to not give them an offer. Its because everyone knows people like you are rampart in our profession and society at large that these laws and practices exist. To you no black person will ever be deemed as "getting it on their own" because if they went to Cambridge/LSE/Oxford or HYP you would scream diversity recruiting. 

If we do make something of our selves people like you claim it was handed to us, if we don't people like you claim we are lazy and deserve it. 

 

No, there has to be proof points of merit. If this kid went to Harvard and got a 3.8 GPA, I know he's good. If I call up his references and they're glowing, I know he's good. If he absolutely crushes his technical questions, I know he's good.

But if he want to Harvard and has a 3.2 GPA and he doesn't have half the answers to technical questions, I'm not touching this kid with a stick. You don't get special privileges for the color of your skin. Why do you think people think you're lazy? When an Asian guy walks into the interview, I know he's worked 2x as hard to overcome the adversity of having a much higher bar. When a black guy walks into an interview, 90% of the time the bar was lowered by 75%. So don't try to have your cake and eat it too

 

You complain about the system pushing whites and Asians down but you're the system, and you openly discriminate against black people.  This just shows that contrary to what WSO believes, the best way for a black person to get a job is to remove all references to race on their resume.

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews

 

Pretty sure AA gets killed at the college level this year with the new Supreme Court case, which will affect all the recruiting pipelines after the next 5yrs or so. Maybe then we can stop seeing all these posts

Dude, if you want sympathy for AA I promise you Reddit is abounding with it. Dunno why you're trying to fight this battle here on a forum where hundreds / thousands of white / Asian dudes have been screwed over. 

Personally am very glad things worked out for me & I don't feel I've been hurt by AA but I know others who have. I suppose technically I didn't get into Wharton for undergrad because they met their quota of Asians, but I got into another very good school & in retrospect am very glad for it. Did an IB internship where this black guy was absolute trash, by 3 weeks in to the summer the associates all stopped giving him work because he was so bad. Kid went home at 6pm every night while the other associates all grinded till 11pm or later (I was in the team right next to them). In the last day of the summer, an associate on that team told us the drama that they recommended this black guy shouldn't get the offer because he was literally awful but guess what happened? The MD (a black guy who was head of diversity recruiting) said no matter what this kid was getting an offer. I later heard from a buddy on that team that of the 6 interns, 3 didn't get called back FT. This black guy who sucked at his job took another kid's spot

So all said while I'm not personally bitter over anything from my career, I can see why and how people get screwed over by AA. Unlike the reddit echo chamber, this is a forum where one can actually discuss the topic without being shut down & this is an industry that is as far from 'woke' as you can get. I'm sure wokeness will come here too at some point but it will take a long, long time to actually happen. Just understand that people here who have been trampled by AA have a right to complain as the impact on them has been very real. This isn't a debate between your straw man of the rich white guy from Greenwich and an AA kid, this is a debate between the middle class white / Asian guy who worked his butt off vs. the AA kid who found out about IB 3 months before recruiting started with a 3.1 GPA and took their place

 

Lol I don't want to scream into an echo-chamber like reddit, whats the point of that? Would rather discuss/argue with people who have opposing views to mine. 

Quick question on the guys you know that were supposedly screwed by AA. Did they make it into any bank at all? Because there's lots of good ol boys EBs, groups within BB's(asia/latam/nordics) and sure as hell a ton of boutiques that would have hired them if they were any good. If they didn't land on their feet in any bank or any front office role at all, like i said they would't have made it anyway, with or without AA and the fact they are deluding themselves to think if there was no AA they would suddenly be in JPM TMT is foolish and entitled.

Those are the people who WSO are awash with, they went to a target and studied English and Philosophy and expected to get into a BB or Megafund over a black guy at his same school who studied Economics and Mathematics, then throw hissy fits when they didn't make it past the interview and come up with conspiracies that they must have not asked the black guy the same questions.  

 

People are annoyed that inferior candidates are being given race based special treatment. Framing the affirmative action debate around specific people losing out isn't all that useful because most people will (as you indicated) land somewhere else. It's a fairness issue - watching a shittier candidate get an offer because HR told the group they need to hire a diversity candidate is appalling. 

That said, it is true that at the margin people get squeezed out. It's just difficult to connect those people losing out with a diversity candidate getting hired because it's a chain reaction. The diversity candidate moonwalks into the job at GS so the merit-based candidate who would otherwise have gotten the offer takes the Barclays job instead, so the person who would have otherwise received that offer takes a different job and so on. Then at the end of the chain someone loses out. 

 

Pretty sure AA gets killed at the college level this year with the new Supreme Court case, which will affect all the recruiting pipelines after the next 5yrs or so. Maybe then we can stop seeing all these posts

I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court overturned Grutter v. Bollinger or otherwise attacked racial preferences. But the idea that universities would just eliminate AA if that happened is wishful thinking. Their ideological commitment to it is too deep.

If Harvard based admissions offers on a neutral standard of of SATs and grades, black students would make up maybe 2% of the undergrad student body. Elite school administrators simply wouldn't tolerate that, period. They would rather eliminate all standards than maintain standards that produce a racial mix unacceptable to them. The test-optional trend that gained momentum during COVID is probably an early step in this direction. Can't prove you're holding different groups to different standards if you don't have any objective standards at all!

 

dude these stupid woke self-contradicting progressives are going to finish American ingenuity, they are as racists as the people who they call racists. stupid

Whoopi Goldberg supporters 

 

Uh, I'm not sure what America you come from but America has never been a meritocracy.

It never will be a meritocracy either. 

Your comment doesn't even make sense grammatically  - even if America were a democracy, I'm not sure you'd be hired in the first place. 

 

> you likely wouldn't have even got to the interview stages if you were competing with only white, male, charismatic, rich and connected applicants. 

How? There's the same number of spots with less competitors. Also they already are competing with the people you've listed.

> I hope you know your seat will still be taken by a trust fund baby

Trust fund babies ALREADY get the seat

> At least with a lot of diversity hires they are sensitive to the struggles of coming from a small town or not growing up rich so they will have that coffee with you or look past the fact that your suit doesn't fit well

A lot of diversity hires grew up rich and are minorities. If anything you should be proposing getting rid of race based hiring and support first gen/ low income quotas.

>  I can understand if you are from a white, rich and historically connected family and wanting to bring back those "good old days" of banking and society because for you it really was better, but anyone else clamoring for it is beyond foolish and short sighted.

Ain't nobody trying to bring back those days, I just don't want people being hired simply based on their race or standing of their family

Both, both racism and nepotism are bad. Idk why you pro-diversity people keep bringing this up like just because we think you shouldn't get hired based on your race means we support nepotism? Seriously wtf, you guys are seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

Adding a data point here. I went through only one diversity process and many non diversity processes while going through SA and FT interviews. Have probably done interviews w 10 different banks or so. The diversity process I went through for a BB was incredibly easy and did not involve even a single technical question. It was a complete layup.

 

Explicabo voluptatibus sequi alias voluptatem quaerat. Error est non eum eum id dignissimos aut qui. Dolorem error omnis at reiciendis voluptas deserunt est. Tempora non esse commodi architecto quaerat esse.

Quia qui nobis quisquam numquam rerum suscipit. Sunt consequatur molestiae et distinctio numquam dolore cum.

 

Commodi sunt perferendis necessitatibus mollitia corrupti quis rerum aliquid. Voluptatem possimus exercitationem qui voluptatem. Qui rerum mollitia sed ut vero minus. Qui sint quos repellendus consequatur.

Porro sunt eum consequatur voluptatem molestiae sit. Consectetur quasi facere et assumenda doloremque molestiae officia.

Officia et accusantium aut aut sequi. Quo quod necessitatibus totam optio consequuntur culpa delectus ex. Temporibus ut consequatur enim ea labore. Voluptatum error nobis iusto. Non minus excepturi enim laboriosam provident itaque unde nisi. Soluta commodi voluptatem quidem optio.

 

Rem voluptas explicabo molestias et modi aut rem. Officia provident eaque sint dolor blanditiis et. Aut omnis consequatur nemo. Nihil quis laborum necessitatibus nulla. Commodi est facere maxime eveniet. Consectetur aut amet aut architecto saepe occaecati asperiores.

Est blanditiis consequatur officia voluptatibus voluptatum nostrum consequatur. Aliquid tempora qui ut qui natus. Exercitationem omnis veritatis ipsam.

Voluptatibus odio vel nulla et. Ut quis dignissimos voluptatum est tempore inventore. In quis omnis eveniet quidem. Molestiae nam natus recusandae reprehenderit distinctio facere. Nobis consequuntur enim aperiam repudiandae aut saepe aut rem.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”