Why the hate towards diversity programmes?
I'll start off by saying that I'm actually genuinely curious about this.
Since joining WSO, which has been amazing by the way, I noticed the amount of hate towards "diversity" and how "diverse candidates" get easier questions, have lower expectations set for them, etc. I want to know if people make these comments when they are talking about diversity programmes in particular or that every single non white/asian male has the bar set lower for them.
I'm saying this because... well, let's just say I'm the kind of person firms loooove to use in the bottom icons of their careers website to depict "our path to diversity and inclusion". But then I had two interviews last week and booooooy were they technical.
I'm not saying I expected my interview to be easy because of that. No, actually. I'm saying that if I went with what I'd read on here then I'd be thoroughly f**cked. The mentality is so skewed. It's like almost everyone on here believes that these applicants always always get is easier.
Or is this just an American thing? I'm recruiting for London, though I'm not from there, so I really don't know.
TL;DR: Is the hate towards those who applied to diversity programmes or do you actually believe that every non-white person (I really hate saying "diverse") who clicked the apply button like you did will get it easier than you?
Make it make sense to me pleaseeeeee.
Also, I wanted to add that these diversity programmes are thoroughly hard to get into. They literally grill you to pieces so that they give the best candidates to the firms. And from how I'd thought about it before coming to WSO, firms know the rigorous process and know you're already top notch to come from there so they don't really waste so much time. But I do understand how people could slip through the cracks - just like how people could also slip through the cracks for normal recruiting!
But please please please, stop this belief that we get easier questions than you. Trust me, you have no idea how I wish this could actually be true for us.
EDIT: I want to say that by diversity programmes, I meant diversity organizations like SEO not firms' events (I have no knowledge of that). I can tell you that before you get into SEO, you will sweat, lol. They make sure they only pick the best.
I'm pro-diversity overall, but dude even if it were true that the actual interviews themselves aren't easier(it's not) . The fact that you GET interviews through diversity events is already a massive leg up on traditional applicants who have to grind and pray that they get interviews through cold networking or if they're lucky OCR. I go to a semi-target myself and the results speak for themselves. 70% of the BB/EB spots went to diverse candidates while non-diversity candidates mostly got MM or boutiques. Clearly, given a non-diversity applicant who grinded as hard as these diversity applicants, it's pretty frustrating to see your peers get a leg up for no other reason other than their ethnicity/gender.
I truly understand what it feels like, believe me. In fact, worse. I'm an international student. I'm not even a target at all!! So the grind and the frustration and every single thing has been with me this whole year.
And that brings me to my main point: You actually assumed I got in through a diversity event. I didn't. I applied just like everyone else. My CV and essays were reviewed by tons of people because I knew I had to get it right. What I'm saying in essense is, maybe just maybe the math you're using is wrong. You're seeing this as 70% of "diverse" candidates. Most of them probably did not apply through a diversity event, just like me.
So when you're saying 70% are diverse, I mean, there are more races and features than, you know, white and male so it just so happens that these people that got in were a different colour, applied and networked the same way, didn't have any contact whatsoever, and still made it.
Imagine after all my hustle someone then labels me as "diverse" and that I got it easier. Boyyy, I will scream!!
American is different than UK
I think this is based on various challenges. first of all, pre-diversity programs people were assumed "equal". We all know that the real world isn't equal, for almost anyone. When you introduce these programs many HR professionals will realize that many diverse candidates aren't created equal either. A diverse candidate can be rich, poor, black, yellow, brown, gay, straight, male/female/other, non-binary, international or domestic, from the foster care system or with parents, able-bodied or not, and so on. (examples only, not avoiding or including certain groups).
It is very difficult to create a group of diversity programs that is truly covering all areas. Educating "others" who don't fit into these programs can be a huge challenge. A person who goes through normal recruiting may not understand why the diverse candidates are different.
In our own firm there a is a lack of everything. HR doesn't even know where to start, but at least they have started.
I understand what you mean. I guess in a way these programmes have created more diversity (in the real sense of the word).
And one downside of these programmes that I've witnessed is when they sometimes bypass poor "diverse" kids who have absolutely no means to learn of these things but have amazing potential (the reason they were created anyway) to favour "diverse" kids from top universities.
But I just can't discount these programmes at all because I know people who worked so hard from such poor backgrounds to get in but couldn't because of that stupid proverbial wall and later got in after going through diversity programmes that helped to make them visible.
I'm happy your firm is doing something to help!
"Conservatives" have a warped view on reality. They think it's easy to predict every dimension in which the world will operate, and believe in historical narratives that fit their own beliefs about how things should behave or what's an ideal, perfect scenario. They have the ability to cherry pick for individual success, but congruently will ignore anecdotal evidence of the opposite. It really comes down to an unwillingness to show any amount of compassion, given that's the easy path to belief in their subjective views of their own strength. I think it's completely possible that the hate towards the programs themselves are just a way to vent out frustration with themselves and their false sense of perfection.
As a white dude from an affluent background I think it’s pretty lame when people fail due to not being the best candidate and then blame diversity recruiting. If anything I think being relatable and polished helps tremendously with the “fit” aspect of recruiting. Additionally, my life leading up to full-time recruiting was a fucking cake-walk and all my friends’ parents were lawyers/financiers/entrepreneurs/etc. Even if I don’t have a leg up due to being a diverse candidate it’s hard to argue I’ve ever been at a disadvantage in the grand scheme of things.
TL;DR failures like excuses and blaming minorities is a common excuse.
Three thoughts here:
1. First, I really have never seen any diversity candidates that are worse than anyone else in the workplace. In IB, everyone is on their top game. If the bank hires someone who is in the top 8% of his class because of diversity instead of a person in the top 2% of his class, you can't tell difference when working with them. Sure, maybe the top 2% guy is a tiny bit better, but it really doesn't matter. Both candidates are extremely intelligent and qualified.
Now if the banks were hiring someone in the bottom 50% of a class instead of the guy in the top 2%, I think that would be pretty upsetting, but I don't see that happening. Every minority person that I've worked with in IB has been very talented.
2. This whole process is really unfair to minorities at the top of their game. What if you are in the 2% of your class and now every dickhead out there thinks you got in just because of diversity. It's complete bullshit and completely unfair to the hardest workers.
3. Last thought, do these programs sometimes do more harm than good? I think on net, it's definitely good to give people a leg up, but it's coming at the price of making race relations worse. Just look at the discussions on WSO...lots of bitter white people on here.
In my opinion, you could tweak these programs to reduce some of the animosity. For example, there needs to be some acknowledgement that not every white person is born with vast amounts of privilege. There is almost nothing worse today than being born to white drug addict parents in West Virginia. If you have a background like that, you should get a leg up too. Similarly, on the other side of the spectrum, if your dad is the MD at a major bank, maybe you shouldn't get to use the diversity hire program. This wouldn't solve all the animosity but I think it would make people feel that the process is much fairer for everyone while continuing to help disadvantaged candidates.
also to add in, just because you are diverse doesn't mean you aren't privileged (your dad could be rich, your family could have a connection, you grew in a solid supportive household), as a result of those factors bank should do an intensive background check on their diverse candidates meaning that they are taking in candidates that don't have those privileges such as low-income kids.
Exactly. I think that's kind of where this whole thing needs to be reset. The people who lool like they don't need it, i.e. the rich diverse ones.
But then when I think of this, I always ask myself if they may have gotten in anyway? Let's keep an open mind in this example: there have and probably will always be racist people. So what if these candidates with all their "privilege" still can't get in because of their skin colour? (Which is one of the reasons this was introduced).
But I understand what you mean and many people aren't much like that anymore (I like to believe so anyway).
And I believe diversity programmes should be inclusive of socio economic backgrounds. The poor white kid (or Middle Eastern or white North African) can sometimes have it worse than the privileged "diverse" ones. I believe we're heading somewhere though. I know some diversity organizations account for that.
You hit this post right on. I think many people are confused with diversity programs of the understandings that people come from different backgrounds and aren't privilege like almost every kid on Wallstreet who comes from wealthier families (not saying everyone) but a majority. I think these diversity programs shouldn't focused so much on race because all different types of people experience hardships in life from low-income families or hard backgrounds of no opportunity. You can be black and be raised in a rich family, go to a target school and still apply to diversity programs. Which a lot of these diversity programs I have seen a lot of well off minorities who attend (granted I attended 2 diversity programs from a BB Bank). The focus of these programs should be based on equality of the gap between the opportunity you have grown up than race. But you also have to consider now that mostly minorities lead in categories of low-income, bad neighborhoods, etc.
I also don’t really understand the hate on diversity programs. Banking isn’t hard and they teach you everything on the job. So what someone didn’t spend all summer memorizing a book. Hell my group head, md, and director were stumped when I asked them a question about a dcf for my intern project. (In their defense, I was in ecm) They told me to ask the analysts who introduced me to their friends in other groups lmao.
Y’all can rip on the “non-targets” all you want but those kids are just as talented as the kids who go to ivies. Kids at schools like Colby, Bates, Carleton, Wellesley, Smith, Emory, Hamilton, etc are just as smart. If the average sat/act is the 95th percentile the bank doesn’t care much where you went to school. The difference between a 32 and a 34 can be 3 questions. You can’t tell me that a guy at Williams is smarter than a girl at Wellesley. Same with the kid who’s top of their class at the university of Nebraska or Michigan state as much as you might hate to admit it.
Et quo possimus natus nisi. Fugit qui ad ratione sint aut dicta blanditiis. Fugiat earum quod cum repellendus dolore. Dolorem sit iure non veritatis vel earum nihil praesentium.
Accusantium voluptatem eligendi asperiores itaque et iure impedit. Cupiditate sit libero possimus et. Rerum ut molestias itaque nobis tempora reprehenderit reprehenderit.
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...