The term “well off” is certainly subjective and we could get bogged down on the existential discussion of what it means, but in my experience “well off” families make too much to get need-based aid.
This whole tangent, which really hinges on the definition of “well off” started when you said well off families chase need-based awards. If your contention is that income between $78,000 and $122,000, the range of the top half of middle-income, essentially the definition of upper middle income, is “well off,” I’ll concede your point. Some in that range can seek need-based awards, depending on their particular financials and the schools they are looking at.
Where I do not agree is that income in that range constitutes “well off,” the synonyms of which, according to M-W, are “fat-cat,” deep-pocketed," “flush,” “loaded,” and “affluent.” It isn’t an insubstantial amount of income, but I think few would ascribe those terms to that range.
That is a fascinating post. It’s amazing how things can get limited not because a student didn’t do well in said competitions, but because they never knew they existed in the first place. I have no doubt that my son would have thrived in formal math competitions, but he never had the opportunity. Thanks for the link.
Has dermatology become unsustainably competitive? Has the Bolshoi ballet, Boston Symphony Orchestra, or starring in Hamilton on Broadway become unsustainability competitive?
I’ve read the thread. I don’t think I understand the premise here.
It bears considering that there was a time when some of us were alive, when the top students at a large public school didn’t even THINK about applying to “top” schools. The only girl in my HS to take AP Physics and Chem went to nursing school (not a BSN- to a nursing program affiliated with a local hospital). The number 2 student in my HS class (with over 1,000 students) had an offer for a full ride scholarship to one of the “seven sisters” but her parents decided that a girl had no business leaving home for college so she commuted to a local college, majored in elementary ed.
Yale-single sex. Princeton- single sex. Of course they were “less competitive”- half the HS population couldn’t even apply. I’m sure it is hard for HS kids today to understand just how low the expectations were (in some parts of the country) for talented female students. And how low the expectations were (again, depending on where you were) for talented minority students.
So yeah- it’s more competitive now. The barriers to entry (social, structural, attitudinal) have come down (not completely, but better than they used to be) and like any other industry- when the barriers come down, it gets more competitive. And some people get aggravated that their path is no longer as smooth as it used to be. I have an acquaintance who is a graduate of a second tier New England boarding school who regularly laments the fact that a B- student at his alma mater is no longer a “walk on” at a big chunk of (formerly) preppy and somewhat prestigious colleges where a B HS student could become a C college student and still get a good job at grand-daddy’s bank.
Why? The seats are now taken by A students coming from public HS’s where they’ve worked hard for four years, and continue to work hard for another four years. And nobody attends his alma mater unless they are a full pay student who has been kicked out of a more prestigious boarding school for an honor code violation or violating the drinking policy.
I nod sympathetically at his retrograde description of the “race to the bottom” while the hard-working and talented women, first Gen, immigrants, and URM’s hit the cover off the ball at these colleges!!!
This really looks like these firms are recreating “holistic admissions” for recruiting, and it seems that they are doing it for the exact same reasons.
They want to keep on hiring people like themselves, i. e., people from White Affluent families. Preferentially hiring athletes over graduates with high grades, talking about “culture”, and “fit” are all the exact same tactics that AOs have used to maintain the large number of Affluent White kids at “elite” colleges.
This seems to be no more than the second hurdle that was established to keep “the Wrong People” out of positions of wealth and power. Now that colleges are trying to increase the number of people who get in based on grades and academic achievements, graduating for an “elite” colleges is no longer an indication of being “the right sort of person”.
Again, it is not at all surprising that the criteria that these corporations are using to select their new employees are so similar to the criteria that are being used to maintain high numbers of wealthy White kids at places like Harvard.
If you want to pick a sport which is representative of White privilege and wealth, you couldn’t do better than to pick Lacrosse. About 90% of all NCAA Lacrosse players are White, and most kids who play lacrosse are wealthy:
Those are great examples. I know someone who danced for the Royal Ballet, and multiple musicians who are world class at their instruments. Who gets chosen when skill levels are sufficient enough to compete for those positions is highly subjective. Who is “best” is in the eyes of the beholder, when they are all technically sufficient. The same is true for selective schools. The problem is, most students and parents don’t understand that.
I am glad that this thread has become popular. I did not expect it to be this active, however! I am pretty overwhelmed with summer work/internships/projects, so for my own sanity I am going to turn off notifications for myself and allow the discussion to continue without me.
Thank you all for contributing your thoughts and perspectives, I think this is a really important discussion to be having!
This is ending. Why? Because clients are demanding it. There are organizations (foundations, family offices, endowments, etc.) who will no longer stash a billion dollars with a money management firm staffed by white affluent decision-makers. There are quasi-public entities (nurses retirement fund, unions, etc.) who require diverse representation across the table from them when big financial decisions and asset allocation moves are being discussed.
It will take time- this is a pipeline issue- 25 year old employees need to move up and through their industries in order to become the 55 year old decision-makers, but it is happening and the changes are real.
I’ve been in corporate recruiting for over 30 years and the changes on the ground are stunning. College A which is a favorite of the prep school crowd getting dumped off the recruiting schedule in order to include a top ranked HBCU. College B which has an OK finance program getting dumped in favor of flagship U with an outstanding finance program. More resources devoted to training early-career professionals so that talented students who majored in bio or political science or urban planning can quickly pick up the skills they’ll need for banking and investment careers.
But you are conflating several issues when you describe the hiring processes as recreating holistic admissions “for the same reasons”. Holistic recruiting puts a finger on the scale for the disadvantaged student, the student who does not have the “social capital” or a great-uncle who can explain who does what, etc. You show me a kid with a solid transcript, taking rigorous courses, some “grit” (summer job delivering pizzas in HS, ending up as a manager of the pizza shop by the summer of sophomore year)-- any decent career services operation can get that kid launched. Will every single kid like this end up doing M&A at Goldman? No. But at a fine institution which will teach, mentor, show the kid the ropes? Absolutely.
The problem arises when- just like when EVERY HS kid interested in finance has to go to Wharton… every single college kid thinks it’s Goldman or bust. No. There are terrific ways to launch even if it’s not at the tippy tippy top of the pyramid.
I have seen substantial resources devoted to training diversity applicants, but not any others, in the banking/finance world. Indeed, I would say that compared to 30 years ago, applicants need to know much more about the nuts and bolts of the business before they are hired than I ever did, and there is a much greater assumption that new hires should hit the ground running and will likely leave within 2 years regardless, (which may be accurate).
I disagree, and I am not sure all of your examples support your conclusions. Yes, recruited athletes/ musicians/ artists, etc. face excellent odds, provided they meet academic requirements which sometimes turn out to be much lower than would suffice for the general pool. If anything, this lower bar is a good example of just how arbitrary the general admissions standards really are. Same goes for legacies, donors, etc. Singling out certain groups for special consideration is nice for those who are singled out, but it certainly doesn’t make them more “deserving” (or more “excellent”) than their peers.
And, as you acknowledge, for unhooked kids “the acceptance rate approaches zero.” Even the “excellent” 99+% kids who lack a hook face extremely long odds.As for the prizes and other mechanisms to sportily academics and the arts, i think their value is overestimated. If you are good enough to be recruited, that’s a hook. The prize is secondary.
When the bar is lowered for hooks, and the hooks are subjective, and the odds are long for even excellent applicants, then admission is more a matter of being lucky than being excellent.
There was a time when the “mini MBA” type programs were JUST at McKinsey (or similar) and JUST for Rhodes Scholars coming back from Oxbridge to the US. They are much more widely used now, either because companies understand that learning how to do a discounted cash flow analysis is not rocket science (especially if you are teaching an actual rocket scientist) AND because distance learning makes running these training programs much, much cheaper.
There are organizations that prefer the finance grads- and that works for them. And there are organizations hiring physics majors and poli sci majors and history majors and chemical engineers- and yes, those young hires need to be taught the nuts and bolts of the business. Colleges like Swarthmore-- (who goes to Swarthmore to study finance?) do very well- punching above their weight in finance recruiting. These young employees are showing up at top firms and day one- they don’t really know anything. They are smart, they know how to learn, they’ve got grit, they can write (i.e. holistic recruiting) but a poli sci major from Swarthmore isn’t going to blow an interviewer away with their insights on capital markets.
The poli sci major at Swarthmore still has to pass the interview to get an IB offer, and that requires some baseline business and finance knowledge. Gone are the days when they get hired knowing nothing about finance.
The baseline business and finance knowledge can come directly from the pages of the WSJ-- I have interviewed finance majors who can’t be bothered to glance at the headlines before walking in to an interview- this is not a tough hurdle to cross!
I disagree. IB recruiting these days requires technical knowledge (accounting and finance) that isn’t gained by just glancing at the WSJ. IB interview prep guides and finance clubs are things for a reason.
I know kids who got offers who had never seen a balance sheet before. They were being hired for their analytical and quant skills, not their accounting ability.
Like I said- different organizations are looking for different things. The best student I interviewed one year (I was not working for an IBank) already had an offer from a top bank. He was a geology major, absolutely brilliant, funny, well-read, and humble. Truly the guy you want to be stuck at Heathrow with for a five hour layover. He was a little shaky on the details of what he’d be doing if he went to the bank though! He was great at 20,000 feet on how the capital markets operate at a global level… a little less informed on what you actually DO all day (i.e. the accounting and finance knowledge you are talking about).
There’re different kinds of people with different skill sets who are hired in any industry (financial service industry included) and by any firm. Some are valued for their analytical skills, some for their interpersonal/communication skills, some for their depth of knowledge in a specialty, etc. Depending on their potential roles, different benchmarks, beyond some basic knowledge/skills, are used to judge their potentials.
How long has it been since any of your kids had a Superday? Mine had some last year, and can assure you that the Ivy kids there had attended rigorous private finance prep programs and mock case interviews in spades-particularly those majoring in soft, non Quant areas, as those kids were repeatedly grilled on mathematics tests during the Superday. The online courses and books are available all over the internet, for a price, and no one is walking in cold to these interviews anymore.
Many years ago it was possible to get hired based on potential. It is more competitive now, and potential alone won’t do it, as everyone comes in with solid prep for IB or consulting.
Exactly. I help kids prep and interview for elite consulting and finance gigs. No one gets an offer going into the interview cold. The prep is a grind. The days of getting hired for soft skills or general analytical skills are gone.
Agreed, my relatives who hire for PE and MBB say the same thing. And they wouldn’t make the cut themselves these days, but that is besides the point. Tons of people go to Swarthmore for finance. Of course they know it isn’t a major, but is a semi-target for Wall St. The world has changed a lot.
Fifteen years ago some of my relatives got in based on social and athletic skills from Ivies and potential with little actual knowledge. Not anymore.
Every one of the four awards I was referring to applies almost exclusively to unhooked kids, if we define hooks as being athletes, URM, legacy, major donors, and children of faculty. So I am saying that within the unhooked pool, where the admit rate is probably around 2%, the kids with these awards get in at rates higher than any hooked category besides athlete. And the level 9 award comes very close to the admit rate for recruited athlete.
It is nowhere remotely close to random, but in fact highly predictable. And rather than your suggestion of lowered standards, this is actually where these colleges are closest to being completely meritocratic.
