What is the need for diversity programs
I was wondering if finance is all about trying to have the creme de la creme from target school which are already hard to get into, what is the need to specifically hire in-terms of diversity.
I'm all for it but when it's someone getting the position over another person just because their diversity is to the point where it doesn't make sense.
Because if it were up to most boomer MD’s they wouldn’t hire any minorities
If it were up to the boomers who control the companies that implement DEI programs the boomers who control the companies would never hire minorities.
Moron.
Wall Street is just trying to make up for decades of racial and gender discrimination
Help me out- Is it
"We did a bad thing in the past, lets purposely do a bad thing going forward to make up for it, so both groups will have been equally hurt"
or
"We made hiring decisions based on race in the past, and that was bad. Let's make hiring decisions based on race in the future to make up for it."
Why are you booing me, I’m right
While you're at it, Maybe the USA and UK should give all it's back to India as well, shouldn't they?
What? You know there’s a difference between Indians and American Indians, right?
Based on the most helpful WSO content, the need for diversity programs in finance can be understood from several perspectives:
Improved Culture and Results:
Addressing Underrepresentation:
Public Relations and Client Requirements:
Socioeconomic and First-Generation Considerations:
Criticism and Skepticism:
In summary, diversity programs in finance are designed to create a more inclusive and effective workforce, address historical underrepresentation, and meet both public and client expectations.
Sources: Why do banks have diversity programs?, The lack of low income/first gen programs prove that diversity is just for publicity, The lack of low income/first gen programs prove that diversity is just for publicity, My Issues with Diversity Recruiting in Finance
The good argument against diversity is not “bUt ThEy AlReADy ReCrUiT aT tHe BeST sChOolS tO gEt oNlY tHe BeSt PeoPlE.” The good argument is that people hired through diversity are less likely to be people on “the track.” Banks recruit the way they have for the past ~50 years NOT because it gives them the best applicants. They do this because it gets a specific TYPE of person. The target is not the best, but those who can handle being on the business end of the whip
There isn't a need unless it's based off socioeconomic status and not race.
Agreed.
I think it should be socioeconomic status plus race, with the former carrying more weight.
Nothing more aggravating than seeing a diversity hire who went to HYPS, parents are Ivy League educated, top tax bracket, etc.. that kid will be perfectly fine.
The black kid from inner city Baltimore, the kid who REALLY needs the help, gets screwed in the process
I don’t think it should be socioeconomic status alone, because then it defaults to a mostly white people only club. Representation matters
It's a fair point. I am a minority (although not defined as a DEI minority if that makes sense) and know many people of my ethnicity who grew up inner city / bad areas. I sometimes feel guilty for the opportunities I've been given due to my socioeconomic status vs. them. I wish they had more equal opportunities.
Hard to find a middle ground IMO but I respect your points.
100%. The AA case at college level + crappy macro together only modestly slowed down DEI at corporate level. Won't be a significant impact until there are actual cases like there was for AA in college
The business need is because increasingly nowadays, a lot of clients won't do business with firms with poor diversity record/rating etc. Also institutional money won't invest money in companies with a low diversity rating.
The logic is and has always been that historically 1) finance hiring was discriminatory, subconsciously or not, 2) due to 1, finance was seen a white boys club where outsiders weren't welcome, and 3) having only white boys occasionally led to unforseen consequences of decisions.
1) and 2) are probably more relevant than 3) in my opinion.
So in order to combat this the idea was basically to reverse discriminate, to get to a stage where the ones making hiring decisions were sufficiently diverse such that the bias in 1) would be removed/reduced I'm aggregate and such that finance wouldn't be seen as an all white boys club, which would sustain the unbiased hiring (both from demand and supply perspectives) and remove the need for targeted DEI recruitment altogether.
Personally, this makes some sense to me. Issue is that well, it's very hard to do the last step, which is to stop the targeted DEI recruitment. Because the goal posts will always be moved and DEI recruitment in and of itself creates resentment from the old white boys club (and others who aren't included in the DEI group) which actually, funnily enough, can further perpetuate 1).
I say all this as a minority who probably has indirectly benefitted from DEI.
Not the old white boys club--those people are doing fine. They like DEI because it makes them feel morally superior while they are entirely unimpacted. It's the young white boys club of people who aren't wealthy or well connected and are looking to work in [insert industry] but it's made more difficult because of DEI hiring.
Est sit tenetur voluptatem aliquam. Adipisci quia voluptatibus et et.
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...