Related Posts
Conversation Starter
Hi, I was told today that I had passed all the rounds of interview for a Senior Consultant role at Deloitte and that they would love for me to join their team but they can’t give an offer at the moment because senior leadership need to take stock/look at data points/measure how successful programmes are so far, only when that is finished I will ‘very likely’ get an offer but it could be days/weeks/months. Has anyone else been told this or know what this means?
More Posts
Anyone from Strategy& ?
Thoughts on Sherpa Prep in DC? Targeting 730
Additional Posts in Consulting Exit Opportunities
Coach
Gray enough area that nobody will get in trouble
Mentor
Key takeaway of this thread: When white people benefit from systematic rules that benefit themselves, that's meritocracy. When systematic rules negatively impact themselves, that's racism.
Don't tell me there's no systematic advantage when networking is such a integral part of consulting...and almost everyone looks like you, thinks like you, grew up like you.
A2- People like what’s familiar to them. I don’t think I need to tell you this. Do you truly believe I these arguments you’re making?
Why dont you want minorities to get jobs when countless research shows there is significant racial bias impacting minority mobility in this country?
Sc1, but this is just it: If your beef is with the history American slavery, it's unfair and irrelevant to bring it into hiring processes that also affect Irish/ukrainian/nigerian/vietnamese recent-ish arrivals. If it is about racist discrimination today, that's already illegal (if in favor of whites) and should be illegal if I'm favor of other groups - well done california and good riddance to affirmative action.
What i don't accept is arguments that look at differences in outcomes and automatically leap to conclude that the process is unfairly biased.
Legal. Bad taste for the recruiter to share that info. Generally thought people realized that though tbh
D2, I’m interested in how you feel about the RECENT studies showing the same resumes being treated differently based on name. Those resumes with white sounding names were called back at nearly double the rate of those with black sounding names. Again, same resume, different names. Sounds like there is still a problem?
And what are these free handouts?
BTW, the civil rights movement was led by black people and literally paved the way for other disadvantaged groups to demand equality, including the disabled. Heck the demand for affirmative action BENEFITTED WHITE WOMEN MORE THAN ANY OTHER GROUP. Saying black people are self serving is an utter slap in the face. Wow. Pick up a book.
Oh all the white men here crying and whining because of the new war against you. Get a grip.
M3 - the way grade schools are funded is a bit more complex than that. Some of the funds come from property taxes (in most cases less than 50% of funds do) as you mentioned but a lot of it comes from the state and a tiny bit comes from the federal government. The breakdown varies by states, counties, municipalities....
But where the funds come from is immaterial to the argument that white kids go to better funded schools which gives them an advantage over other kids. It’s a major advantage that white kids have but hardly the only one.
So to anyone who wants to argue that universities or companies should not have diversity quotas because it’s unfair, I ask these: how can we make up for the late start this society offers to minority kids? And how do we pay back the African American community for all the state sponsored harm (slavery, redlining, Jim Crow, mass incarceration...) that has been inflicted on it?
Did that really happen though? This feels like a post made solely to stoke racial tensions
At Accenture our referral bonuses are based on gender and ethnicity. You get 2-6x more $ if you refer women or diverse candidates than white/male individuals. When staffing projects in some groups, we are required to consider all diverse candidates regardless of skills for a role prior to contacting any white or male individual and we are told to by modify our second round candidates after interviews based on race or gender, oftentimes against recommendations of first round interviewers.
I get what we are trying to do, but the discussion of whether to treat individuals differently by policy based on race/gender should at least be a discussion point. We are trying to combat the racism of the past by adopting policies that by definition are racist. On one hand we are trying g to create a different balance in our workforce, a laudable goal. On the other hand Racism is still racism even if meant to combat past racism, I don’t see why we cloud the conversation by pretending that we are not creating a textbook definition of racism. The conversation should be is institutional racism against whites of today justified to correct racism perpetrated by whites on the past? Both sides have valid criticisms and praises but to say that whites are just crying because it doesn’t benefit them now is dumbing down the conversation, and also forgetting “white” is a massive group not comprised of all the stereotypical rich kids of college graduates.
These policies are a band-aid of a symptom, while failing to address the root cause of why we have fewer diverse candidates that are graduating with the qualifications of needed for this job. Instead of firms addressing why certain ethnicities graduate/have the skills as a lower of their representative population, we just try to cherry pick candidates of a smaller pool and tell ourselves we are part of positive change. We are not. We are taking candidates who already overcame 95% of the challenges and taking credit for them overcoming socio-economic circumstances, bias they may have faced etc. it is not us going to kids in middle school, high school etc and giving them help, investing in diverse neighborhood schools, mentoring kids young enough to move the needle and giving them the motivation to change the course of their future when it actually is most important for change.
Our policies today... It’s still racism. Treating someone differently based on the color of their skin (positive or negative) is by definition racism. What they aren’t saying is they are advocating for institutionalized racism because it achieves their goals. This is the conversation and why people dance around it is irrelevant. We can choose as a society to actually address the root causes or we can set some corporate diversity goals, go create a few policies to try and right the past at the expense of actually treating our employees equal and in the end if we just try and combat diversity with quotas and preferential treatment we will wonder why we still aren’t achieving our diversity goals 10, 20 years down the line.
Mentor
Leaving this hypothetical: Let's say a white candidate on avg get an offer 50% of the time while minority candidates get an offer 10% of the time. (Assume absolutely no bias in the interview process and only qualified candidates get offers....I know...)
From the perspective of the recruiter, without this incentive, doesn't it make sense to only source white candidates?
Does this incentivize recruiters to look more broadly for qualified candidates or something else?
Yes looking at qualifications and not the name and race and gender associated with it should be the goal. I’d I start a business I don’t care what you look like, only if you can deliver
Coach
Didn’t you hear OP? It can’t be racist if it’s against white ppl.
🤡
Share the recruiters info please they can use me 😝
Count me into
Coach
The great white fear...come on
A2 - You think whites and minorities are given the same opportunities in this country?
Definitely illegal, you could probably whistleblow on them and get a hefty reward
Basic supply and demand. Less minority candidates for certain fields. Of course they will get paid more to find a harder niche market of people. It’s more work.
Ridiculous but true - equality has become equal outcomes as opposed to equal opportunity
Subject Expert
It’s legal and it’s happening at most firms. Really looking for Black and Latin people when they say minorities.
Lol I had a similar experience when I had a recruiter straight up tell me that the fund is predominantly male and is only looking for females currently.
PFor context, I’m a black male and I was recruiting for this fund which was also predominantly white.