Pretty straightforward question that I think might provoke some interesting discussion. At the top consulting firms, who has more to prove: analysts/associates hired straight out of undergrad, or consultants hired out of business school? (For this discussion, let's consider new hires who neither interned nor worked full-time at the firm before business school.)
It seems that at most firms, the A's and C's go through similar training, and in many cases, both share the same consulting inexperience. It seems to me there's more downside risk that A's will say something really stupid in front of a client because of their likely lack of work experience. It also seems less likely that A's would have practical experience or expertise they could immediately contribute to a case team.
That said, many fresh MBA's may also lack that polish and experience, so perhaps the new A's and C's are not so different after all. And with a few years of work experience, plus (presumably) a top MBA, might C's be held to a higher immediate standard than A's right off the bat?
So, who has more to prove?