Is diversity recruiting fair?
Not saying people who break in through diversity events are unqualified or unintelligent. I just don't understand how is it fair to give LGBTQ (or other minorities) people a huge advantage in the recruiting process.
Trending Content
| +181 | Ideal College/Recruiting Timeline | 38 | 1d | |
| +75 | Lied on CV? | 56 | 7s | |
| +75 | Military Officer vs. IB analyst | 28 | 3h | |
| Got fired after 1.5 years as an Analyst, want to stay in Banking but I am confused | 10 | 10h | ||
| +26 | Amazing offer but I’m drowning in debt | 13 | 1d | |
| +25 | Is there a point to networking if you have (nepo)? | 7 | 14h | |
| +23 | Are Single Managers Just Not Hiring? | 10 | 3d | |
| +23 | How do I go about explaining huge gaps in a CV for Spring & Summers? | 11 | 21h | |
| +21 | Job Switch Advice | 5 | 15h | |
| +19 | SHIFTING FROM LAW TO FINANCE | 14 | 1d |
Career Resources
Not at all. But then again, nothing in life really is “fair”
OFC it's not fair. It's a reverse-discrimination. Only diversity program has to be considered is one for veterans.
Agree with this - veterans should be the only ones given outright benefits. I understand promoting diversity networking and more support during the actual course of the analyst/associate program, but these "must fill x% of the class with diversity" is leading to a wide gap between the capabilities/general quality of diversity and non-diversity candidates in the analyst class.
I understand discrimination happened in the past (coming from an Asian, so we faced it to), but the problem is banks are trying to go from 10% female/minority classes to 50% in such a short time (looking at you GS). Because of this, lots of undeserving kids are squeaking through.
Yes, I know that rich white kids got through on connections in the past, but since that's showing no indication of stopping, your connectionless non-diversity candidate is finding it much much harder to break in. So many PE/VC firms have analyst programs only for "women/minority/LGBTQ".
It's a zero sum game folks. From my end, I try to push candidates that don't benefit from these programs as hard as I can, but sometimes that's not enough.
Thanks for sharing your thought and thank you for what you are doing. Really appreciate that.
So if a candidate fits the diversity bracket(minority, LGBTQ, female) you wouldn't push for them as hard as you would for a connection-less "white" male????
Same here but it feels shit to have to compensate against people that are favored.
“discrimination happened in the past” lol, do you live in what planet?
I always felt like it was super unfair, until I ended up getting some opportunities through the "diverse" programs. Now, I don't want that to be the reason I break in. Gotta take what comes to you I guess.
Is systematic and structural discrimination fair? There's a reason why the vast majority of candidates hired outside these programs are upper/middle class white people. Realistically speaking, the hurdles that individuals from minorities face are much, much higher on average. Giving people the opportunity to be viewed separately is just a mechanism to account for the fact that, in the larger context of socioeconomic status and privilege, the fact that they have made it to the same place as the average straight white male (saying this as one myself) has required much more work. At the end of the day, there's a reason that in lieu of these programs, so many of those hired do fit the SWM template. These programs don't exist to take opportunities away from historically "standard" applicants, but rather to open up opportunities to structurally and systematically disenfranchised applicants who have done an unthinkable amount more to get to the same place. While I understand the frustration, both the history of finance and the world are incredibly white and male, which, without intervention, those same trends and structures continue to exist and create a self-perpetuating cycle of classist capital consolidation. To cite some empirical evidence, a valuable study done by Bertrand & Mullainathan found that applicants with "white-sounding" names were much more likely to get callbacks for jobs in general than those with "black-sounding" names, and even more frequently were likely to be channeled up, i.e. offered a position of higher seniority than the one they were applying for. I hope this provided at least a degree of clarity on the purpose of these programs both inside and outside the finance world, but I'm happy to discuss further if you disagree or find anything I said unsatisfactory.
Well said
The standard applicant is not just rich, white male. Plenty of asians (who are fucking diverse in their own regard; it's a whole darn continent) and middle/lower-class white folk get absolutely fucked over by this system.
I wouldn't care if it's only finance since a lot of applicants are doing it just for the money, but this is happening in a lot of industries.
Deleted
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/532d9bc9e4b0371f1584ce19/…
Nicely put.
what about asian male? basically got kicked out from wallstreet
This is true, however most of the people getting hired via diversity programs are just rich minorities who also went to Phillips Exeter. I'd love to see some way devised of actually opening up these opportunities to truly underprivileged people, both minorities and white and asian kids from actually modest backgrounds. Idk why you couldnt add like, Pell Grant recipients to diversity recruiting.
Hi! I posted the comment you're replying to, and I would actually tend to agree that perhaps the greatest shortcoming of these programs is the inability to pay more accurate attention to socioeconomic status, but it's also difficult for employers (and even colleges via FAFSA) to fully gauge that, and it may not even be legal for them to request some of that information. That being said, though, one of the biggest emphases in IB recruitment is "culture", and the following question arises: at what point will individuals from non-traditional finance backgrounds feel as comfortable or accepted in white-dominated workplace culture? I did some work at a small office that was entirely white, with one Asian. For someone from a Latino or Black background, it would likely be a much more challenging environment to navigate. Putting individuals in the position to create a more comfortable/safe office macroculture for people from minority backgrounds to join also should have some merit, as often (and I can provide studies on this as well, but I'd have to go back and dig through my research) culture is used as an informally discriminative term to create a much more homogenous office demographically, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Additionally, one of the major issues that I failed to touch on in my above comment is the importance of connections. A few others have mentioned that one of the major benefits of being a white male is leveraging family connections. Creating inroads for people from different backgrounds to have individuals to reach out to at various offices that have the same or similar racial/ethnic/identity-based experiences is valuable in and of itself, regardless of an individual's socioeconomic status. A lot of the dissenting comments (and likely the source of much of the ms on my prior comment) have seemed to indicate that they believe representation is purely symbolic, but the question then arises as to whether representation in and of itself holds significant value beyond just being able to report statistics. The fact of the matter is that the United States is by no means a post-racial state or even one that handles race relations well, and to dismiss the importance of minority representation in any capacity entirely disregards the importance of fostering environments that people from non-white backgrounds can feel to which they can relate. Thus, in terms of the almighty discussion of "culture" and "fit", there are often underlying (and quite often unintentional!) biases that, as of right now, reflect a majority predisposition and could make it more difficult for non-white candidates to break in. I really appreciate your input and insight, and I really think you make a compelling statement here (and in a constructive way). Again, always happy to discuss further.
Whilst I agree with part of this, if you look more closely to who these people in diversity programs are you'd be surprised. Often times it is some of the richest people within minorities and a white male coming from a poor neighborhood as our good friend Lloyd will missout out on the opportunity. But agreed life's not fair, but banks are trying to make it fairer by discriminating even more. I think that it would be more relevant to consider parents income rather than gender or race when it comes to diversity hiring, or a combination of the two factors. I'm sorry but if you're a black dude and your dad racks in $1m per year you've got nothing to do here.
Exactly this.
This so ridiculous and an asinine way to run a company. Eventually these companies will continue to lose talent to competitors that don't do this stuff, just like universities.
"Realistically speaking, the hurdles that individuals from minorities face are much, much higher on average."
ON AVERAGE!! Why would you give someone preferential treatment because they are apart of a group that "on average" has it tougher. Why not just look at the individual, and not the group, and make that decision. Why can't the straight white male from rural Oklahoma with meth heads for parents get this additional recruiting opportunity? What about the Chinese immigrant whose parents are rice farmers!? He can't because he is not looked at as an individual but instead as part of a larger group, one that he might not have that much in common with. Instead we need to give Colin Powell's grandson an additional recruiting opportunity because "on average" his race has a tougher childhood.
Also what is "On average"??? Talking about females? Sexy white blond rich females? Who went to private schools for 20 years? Or are you only talking about the poor African American from rural Georgia.
I agree there is value to assessing a candidate based on what hardships they have overcome. It shows character and perseverance but to assess that based on race, gender, and sexual orientation is in fact racist and sexist.
it's this exact conventional and misleading thinking that is inconsistent with reality. don't dare count for poor white guys that had to fight through similar obstacles and poverty. I guess we forgot to make a diversity program for them. oops.
Do you seriously think that an black / hispanic kid from the South-Side of Chicago is at bat for a job at Goldman Sachs? Most likely not. Most of the minorities I've ever ran into in Banking actually came from very affluent families. Hence these people were not affected by "systematic and structural discrimination".
This isn't even evening the scale between the rich white kid who went to Exeter / Harvard / GS. The people that get absolutely screwed are the middle class white and asian kids who might actually be able to provide a lot of great insight, but are losing offers out to the 3.2 GPA kid who went to Howard or Morehouse that essentially got a handout
It's unfair but there's really not that many diveristy candidates, so there's a race to get the good ones
Deleted
Thanks for making a great point using your own example.
I fucking hate diversity programs. don’t need to lay it out here, some did, but the connectionless so called white privileged kid has to be more talented and work harder than most others.
You do realize that diversity programs usually count for less than 10% of hires.
show me your backup? source and how you measured it? or is this quoted from a puppet in some news article? this is likely and dare I say fake news
My bank had 45% of women out of less than 8% of applicants, + on top of that they had 20% of minorities, so effectively you can say roughly 50% are almost diversity hiring.
I don't know what fairness has to do with it, but its clearly dumb on the most basic level to care about someone's ethnicity or who they sleep with when evaluating them for a job.
Not at all.
As an Asian male, diversity recruiting pisses me the fuck off.
Deleted
It's completely fair. Anyone non-diversity who feels they wouldn't have an offer b/c of diversity recruiting is mad they don't stack up to their non-diverse peer set.
Banks want diversity because their CLIENTS are diverse. It has nothing to do with rich or poor or trying to help underserved communities get a chance (in most cases). It's about having the faces (and sexual orientations) at your bank match the faces (and sexual orientations) of the clients you're working with in an increasingly global world.
That is why banks are willing to pay and compete for diverse talent (often just as qualified) b/c it's hard to come by in an industry that's historically been primarily white. Basic supply and demand.
"It's completely fair." Agree for the most part, but think emphasis should be more on socioeconomic condition.
"Banks want diversity because their clients are diverse." Banks want diversity for their image.
"Often just as qualified" Sometimes, yes, but the bar is clearly lower.
Bullshit, banks need to hire diversity candidates to fill quotas and improve their public image after the shit show of the 2008 crisis. There is nothing wrong with diversity but to say that banks want diversity because of their clients is inaccurate.
it's client driven? what you've just suggested is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no bananas, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Of course it's not fair. There's no reason why this process needs to be fair.
This job really isn't all that difficult at the analyst level, it's really just doing a lot very repetitive tasks and managing lots of workstreams. Hiring a 3.8 GPA white kid over a 3.5 GPA kid who falls into one of the diversity buckets isn't going to affect the bank that negatively from a revenue standpoint, especially given the 90%+ attrition rate between analyst and associate. Why not take the chance on the "less qualified" kid and gain tons of good PR in the process?
At the end of the day, the bank just cares about it's reputation, not maximizing the quality of its analyst class that are just going to dip in 2 years
Obviously not. As a diversity recruit myself with a good GPA (above 3.7) and competitive internships, I can't exactly AVOID being diverse (I have to check a box every single time I apply). But to be completely honest OP's comment literally just proves the fact that there IS an underlying racism. How can you say that there's no difference and that it's unfair when a lot of people just see all non-white people as being less able, because the perception is that we only got in using these programs. In reality being from a decent school overall that is a non-target for most banks and coming from a background worlds away from banking, because I grew up poor and not even in this country, I'd be stupid to not take advantage of these opportunities. Overall, I liken these diversity programs to the mom and dad connections most of the white guys above me have. Also dude, stop being such a bitch about it because honestly, we don't even make up 10% of the applications, how many hispanic/black/gay bankers do you actually know?
Exactly what I was saying, there's only like 7-9 people considered in these programs every year.
Checking the box is different from straight up applying to a diversity program. I know candidates that would fall under diversity who did (1) but not (2).
So let me get this straight, not taking advantage of something that eases your trouble and making it way easier to get an IB gig is a worthwhile exchange for gaining what? Your honor and respect instead? Lmao fuck off
Privileged white males have a huge advantage in the recruiting process - there is absolutely zero debate about that. Diversity just sets the playing field. Shouldn't be a problem if you were good enough to begin with, and not relying on white privilege for things to fall on to your lap.
Honestly, based on my experience, the minorities are the hungrier, harder working, and the very last folks to complain.
Funny how you overlook Asian male applicants. Asians are only categorized as minorities when it’s convenient for other minorities. In the end, we don’t get “white privilege” or diversity steroid shots during any application process. I graduated from MIT, and it’s kind of crazy how “some” diversity kids that I met there even got in compared to my friends back at home. Of course, we just “deal with it.” I mean what the fuck are we going to do politically we are still “minorities.”
My dad used to say to not enter finance and just stick to medicine because the white guy is always going to get the promotion over me. Now, kids aren’t worried about getting a promotion; rather, they are more worried about getting a fucking job.
Although I didn’t recruit for IB, I still had to work my ass off to break into the hedgefund space.
Advice to prospective Asians: Worry about what you can control.
Pretty much this - all the SJW's commenting on this thread conveniently ignore this fact. The truth is nobody cares - as long as it benefits them who cares that asian males are being discriminated so heavily against (all the minority drawbacks + none of the benefits).
Part of that is our fault - we don't stand up for ourselves. Well things are changing, which is why I do my best to push these candidates through.
How does that have anything to do with what I wrote? I said privileged white males shouldn't worry about diversity hiring if they were talented to begin with.
is it fair that once dad is buddies or family friends with people in bank all you get is a telephone interview and offer, if DR fills 20% of spots, what’s described above fills 60% of spots.
My issue with diversity recruiting is about gender rather than race. This is not to say that girls are less capable at all. Some are even more capable. But the reality is that maybe 20% of applicants are female. So for a bank to get to a 50/50 split, they have to hire a very high percentage of the girls. Because of this they end up hiring some very qualified candidates but also some that shouldn’t be there.
This didn’t necessarily make it harder for me to find a job. I was mostly frustrated by seeing how little effort was put in by some while I was busting my ass for an internship.
I also don’t think it’s fair for the qualified candidates. It puts them in a bucket with unqualified people rather than the rest of the class.
I am pretty curious as to what you're referring to when you talk about "qualified candidates". The overwhelming consensus is that IB is not a hard job — this is not quant work or medical school. I go to a top three school and most of the kids do banking are white and extremely rich NYC, LA, or Fairfield CT kids — I am black and middle class. The majority of kids who end up at banks are largely self-selecting and that is what diversity recruiting attempts to address. How hard you had to bust your ass while looking for an internship had little to do with a diversity hire. You mention "unqualified" and people who "shouldn't be there" in your post but I can guarantee that almost anyone who worked in finance knows many more incompetent men in the industry than women — yet you're going to make a post voicing your concerns over the quality of female candidates.
That's because there are far more men than women in finance, so yes, the gross # of incompetent men is likely also greater. But on a per capita basis, the opposite is true, since the hurdles are lowered for acceptance.
All this applies really just to the more junior levels, by the way. It's all performance once you reach Director+. A female (or basically any) MD is basically guaranteed to be a star since it's a pretty binary "how much did you sell" that keeps you employed.
Maybe qualified is the wrong word. I’m not saying that banks shouldn’t hire women. I’m saying that everyone should be expected to prepare. If you can’t at a minimum learn the 400 guide, then you’re just being lazy. I personally know people that got top offers without knowing how to explain a LBO. To go to a superday without studying just shows entitlement. The banks have made it too obvious how badly they want to hire these candidates.
My problem isn’t with equality. My problem is with how the banks have gone about it. The banks could target a diverse hiring mix through traditional recruiting. I don’t see the need for a separate process. And personally I think the notion that everyone on wall street got the job from their rich dad’s connections, is ridiculous. Yes they’re out there just like any industry, but I know quite a few people in the industry and not a single one got it from their parents.
Someone else brought up a good point. I am referring to mba recruiting not undergrad.
Female MBA associates are definitely weaker on average; to your point, there aren't exactly a lot of ~30 year-old women looking to spend ~80 hours a week in the office, so firms have to end up taking a fatter slice of the talent distribution if they're shooting for a 50/50 class. That said, pretty tough to hide as you progress, so the differential shrinks quite rapidly as underperformers are culled or leave on their own accord.
Less an issue (though bar still lowered) for 22 year-old women fresh out of undergrad.
Yes sorry i am talking to my experience during mba recruiting.
Can confirm this - it's especially evident with MBA classes. Analysts on the other hand is pretty much a wash, especially for EBs where applicants are mostly judged by their merit (this is slowly changing as they get bigger and need to look at optics).
What about Asians guys? Say white guys have advantage as you guys are saying. White and Asian female have women’s program, black and Hispanic male can apply diversity, black and hispanic female can apply both women’s and diversity.
Isn’t it unfair for Asian guys to have not a single program that they can apply for. Is the industry forcing them to be homosexual?
It’s just obviously unreasonable.
As an asian guy who destroys the curve at a lower ivy who probably deserved to be at a better one and one who barely got into banking and landed a pretty good BB (and literally knowing I got dinged for being asian at some other BBs) I take it as motivation to be the best analyst. These diversity kids won't know what hit them.
Yes diversity recruiting is fair.
If you think a diversity candidate (non-female) took your “spot” you were very likely a weak candidate anyway. If you can’t outcompete like 10 minority kids in a pool of a thousand applicants, you have bigger issues.
Is diversity recruiting fair? In my opinion, no.
But, do I believe no efforts should be made to encourage traditionally under-represented groups in finance to apply? Absolutely not.
My point of view essentially boils down to the following:
Equality of Opportunity > Equality of Outcome
We should aim to remove the barriers to entry there are for those less-fortunate. What are those barriers? For me, they are Access to a Professional Network, Mentors, Professional Training and Education.
I think banks should only focus on addressing the first 3 of the aforementioned barriers, the last one is largely taken care of by the academic scholarship system.
This is where I think the line needs to be drawn. No mandatory hiring quotas. Hire on merit only.
But, max out all your effort on addressing the barriers and I think there will be no need for quotas. Good applications from under-represented groups will increase organically.
Is it fair? No, a lot of deserving asian/white kids who may have grown up disadvantaged are getting dinged over less qualified "diversity" kids. That being said, is it necessary? Yes.
Voluptates nulla adipisci libero unde quia aut. Dolorum et reiciendis optio dolores. Ut eos qui in iure ut aut. Voluptatem est labore sequi aut.
Et rem sed velit ea totam voluptatem est. Itaque voluptatem occaecati quis ut est non quos. Rerum nisi aperiam consequatur distinctio tempore eius animi. Veniam aut est at consequatur vitae asperiores. Esse incidunt recusandae sit iste et iusto asperiores.
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...
Fugiat illum nihil molestiae necessitatibus eveniet. Veniam delectus sit vero quis. Totam dicta minus facilis voluptatem. Illum ab tempora porro odit nisi.
Ut occaecati vitae voluptates est ipsam. Tenetur esse aspernatur quisquam iure.
Atque veritatis minus velit eos et qui. Ipsa quidem voluptates nobis.
Voluptatibus dolore est accusantium aliquid omnis est tempore. Ullam rerum animi sed odit ipsum a est. Inventore in corporis facere aut asperiores. Magnam sit provident odio et labore id ex repellendus. Assumenda et qui praesentium quisquam provident. Debitis nam modi corporis voluptate voluptas animi.
Accusamus doloribus deserunt reprehenderit ut aut. Sed eos et atque quam nisi ut ut. Rerum dignissimos sit et nobis necessitatibus culpa minima.
Soluta est recusandae ut tempore. Libero repudiandae ducimus voluptas id inventore explicabo. Et ut laudantium eligendi est repellendus et officiis. Aut tempore non voluptatem culpa est. Aut consequatur provident voluptas earum. Nisi quo aut quo corrupti rerum et neque.
Quas sed magni voluptas id dolores facilis doloremque. Aperiam molestiae commodi quis debitis nam et qui. Quos non atque molestias debitis. Quae incidunt architecto occaecati unde debitis. Consequatur sed consequuntur animi quia omnis ipsum. Dicta optio consequuntur inventore odio.
Non autem iusto culpa natus odio aut aut voluptatibus. Sunt ut cum quae aliquam magnam aut. Perferendis ad repellat illum enim sunt omnis. Officia qui voluptate quod eum quia. Impedit aliquam quisquam dolor non nam facere. Exercitationem veniam quis enim qui eius autem incidunt exercitationem. Quam illo dolor optio accusamus iusto sit.
Possimus temporibus eum voluptas. Facere impedit tempora qui ut eveniet.