One thing that's very disheartening to read on this forum is the bias against kids from targets. Apparently, kids from targets just happened to be privileged enough to get into a good school while kids from non-targets unfairly get screwed. I'm sorry, but when did working hard in high school and middle school become "privileged"? I know some outstanding kids at non-targets and mediocre kids at targets, but the kids here who attack targets on here honestly sound like OWS. 99% of the spots in banking are filled with 1% of schools!!!!!!
Listen: If I'm looking at Harvard 3.6 Poli Sci with no real internships, and a Non-Target 3.6 Finance with boutiqueinternships, I'm taking the former ALL DAY (assuming that he's sociable, knows what IBD is, etc.). Why? Because I know that Harvard kid was motivated enough to spend 4 years in high school working his ass off, getting 2300+ SATs and 3.9+ GPAs and leading sports teams while the Non-Target kid made some cold-calls to random boutiques and got lucky. Yes, you can argue the whole "can't afford Harvard" or "rich parents made donations" angle (and I ABSOLUTELY sympathize with the kids who couldn't afford to go to Stern or GTown or some other low-financial aid school), but generally speaking, most targets are actually incredibly generous with financial aid and development cases make up a tiny portion of the population (and those kids get hooked up anyway). In fact coming from a poor background helps you get into Harvard.
Just my rant. To quote someone from this forum, "it's not a silver spoon if you've earned it." I'm not bashing non-target kids in anyway (the ones I've met in banking are terrific), just the ones who paint the Ivies with the same broad stroke.