My comment on another post was getting some positive reactions, so I figured I'd share it more widely in its own post:
Using a virtual program to decide who does or does not get offers would always be referred to as an unfair system. And honestly, that would be rightly so. IB and consulting already offer an inherent advantage to rich kids -- so putting forth a system where kids in homes with slow/inconsistent/no internet, perhaps dysfunctional and fighting families, or parents who need them to also help out around the house -- makes it a very unlevel playing field. You can say "that's life" but that's not reflective of how they would perform on the job. The only level way to gauge the competency of interns is if they're all actually on the job.
Most reactions I've read regarding the decision made to guarantee full-time, , LEK, Strategy&, , , , and have all been quite positive, but there seemed to be a vocal, disgruntled minority. The truth is though that there is no meaningfully fair alternative to this.