Related Posts
“Reflecting on and adopting the use of micro-affirmations would be a positive strategy to prevent microaggressions. Micro-affirmations are small acts that foster inclusion, listening, comfort and support for people who may feel isolated or invisible in their environment. Focus on action, not avoidance – create new good behaviours.”
Disappointed by the lack of diversity of Atlanta
More Posts
It’s a Christmas miracle! 🐶🐱
How do you ask for points?
Orange Business Services require network engg (L1/L2) (Designation: Service Desk Specialist), having exp. of 2-6 years Gurgaon, 24x7 working environment. Good knowledge BGP, OSPF, MPLS SDWAN, Cisco, Juniper, and troubleshooting of optical circuits required. Interested candidates can send details on https://lnkd.in/dXkvJyj7 Candidates who applied in last 30 days, please do not apply again
Additional Posts in Consulting
Only 2 more days till Consultant Friday!!
Who resigning this week?
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Are you saying that certain minority groups are operating at a perceived lower standard? I really hope you have way more factual support than a 'feeling' that the new hires are just not as good, and you think it's due to KPMG's focus on diversity.
As mentioned later in the post, that was not the intended discussion point, nor do I believe that minority groups are operating at a lower standard. I was merely asking how others felt about certain interview requirements being lowered (which I’ve witnessed first hand) for diverse individuals. I apologize for the way this post was written such that it could be interpreted that way.
I just went through an exercise with a sourcer because he couldn’t understand why we were rejecting his candidates. He sent us a candidate he thought would be a good fit; a man with some consulting experience & an Ivy League education who was a referral (candidate 1). He then sent us another resume of someone who applied , but the sourcer wasn’t sure about; a minority woman with an advanced degree from a public university (candidate 2).
When I mapped each candidate’s experience against the 12 things we were looking for; Candidate 1: 2/12. Candidate 2: 10/12.
In our sourcer’s eyes, we were “lowering our standards” because candidate 2 didn’t come from an Ivy, or another big firm, & wasn’t a referral. Even though it wasn’t even a competition in terms of the experience we asked for, I probably wouldn’t have seen candidate 2’s resume if it hadn’t been used to try & justify this sourcer’s choices, which backfired.
We’re interviewing candidate 2.
^exactly. Especially for big recruiters who too often rely lowest common denominator factors.
lol
Why even post this? Like really what is the point of this post?
Maybe for the interview but def not for hiring lol a lot of times diversity hires have reasons be below the benchmark, the recruiting assists them by having them come in for interviews and showcase their intelligence. I.E low gpa but decent work experience or great gpa at an average school but tier 2 job after college due to school they went to.
I think it makes sense to have them come in and showcase their abilities. They still have to crack the case, pass the behavioral, and communicate well in order to get the job. Once they're in, you shouldn't hold their background against them.
Maybe people have legitimate reason to have “lower grades”. For example, if one had to work 30 hours a week during high school to help support their family. Which lowers GPA, which in turn lowers chances of getting into top school/scholarships which means lowers chances of getting picked up by big name employer?
Maybe that person worked their butt off at their first no-name employer built legitimate skills that could be leveraged and interesting to a consulting company.
I’ll get off my soapbox. Very thankful to be a diversity hire in ACN.
I would go off on anyone who called me a diversity hire instead of a normal hire
People from different backgrounds may need to be measured and analyzed differently to predict if they will be successful in a consulting career. I think of this practice less as “lowering requirements” and more as “looking through a different lens.” GPA and participation in case competitions aren’t the only strong predictors of core consulting skills.
Thanks, OP, almost didn’t post it because it felt preachy. Glad it didn’t come across that way!
I’m a minority and this offends me at 0 amount. Dont really have an opinion, but wouldn’t be surprised if it was true.
Yea, McKinsey is pretty much 20% Indian at all levels, out of all minority groups they probably are perceived as the most capable
I think our requirements need to be evaluated. We should look at our top performers and find out how they are alike and recruit based on that. Doing that exercise yearly ensures we get the people we need now and not who we needed years ago.
Humanities might come out on top depending on the practice - for instance, in our deal advisory practice focused on technical accounting we don’t have any humanities majors but for Corp strategy we might have a mix of both.
CLARIFICATION: There seems to be a misinterpretation of the initial post by my own fault. I apologize for the confusion. My post is that in our actual recruiting practices that I’ve seen first hand, we have lowered certain requirements such as GPA for diverse individuals and was generally curious on POC and non-POC thoughts on this matter. This post was not meant to come off as the diverse candidates I’ve worked with are “not meeting par” or anything of that nature. The diverse candidates I’ve had the pleasure to work with are great, but was curious on the people’s thoughts on the firm actively lowering certain requirements for interviewing diverse candidates.
Is having different GPA requirements legal?
Traditional measures of suitability for a job tend to reinforce the continued dominance of the group with the most power and wealth rather than underlying ability. Deliberate policy kept minorities out of gainful employment and white neighborhoods for generations, which meant certain groups grew up in worse school districts in families with less wealth. That meant rather than getting help with homework in the evening parents are working to keep food on the table. No SAT prep classes in high school. Guidance counselors that are busy keeping kids out of jail rather than helping with college apps and financial aid. Credit ratings tend to be poorer with less wealth, which means less access to student loans. Working while going through college to keep a roof over your head is very different than working for beer money, and can easily impact grades.
We don’t have great measurements of the kind of grit, ability and perseverance that enables success from that background. If grades, university rankings and test scores are being weighed less it doesn’t mean that standards are lowering, it means the companies are trying to evolve the standards to screen for true ability across demographic cohorts rather than continuing to rely on metrics that only accurately reflect the abilities of middle and upper class white people
Fantastic explanation. So many people have rigidity of thinking when it comes to hiring (“just hire the best person for the job!”) but there are so many factors at play, all correlating to success on the job in some form or fashion.
If you haven’t been living under a rock, hiring from elite schools predispose firms on getting wealthy kids who got bought in. Not saying there were standards lowered. Just saying....
Also, I don’t believe this, but know when you say the things you just said, it can feel like how you just felt if you are from an elite school
Totally agree, the only way to make a true change to diversity is by providing opportunities for students from other schools that we don’t typically recruit from. At PwC we have the Start internship program for underrepresented minority groups. I’ve been fortunate enough to work with HR to interview some candidates, as well as place interns on my projects. While the program’s requirements are adjusted to allow for a plentiful candidate pool, it’s amazing how incredibly smart these kids are. Many are offered full time positions and become strong performers. I guess the point to my post is that entry criteria may be different but at the end of the day everyone is ranked against each other through the review process and thrive. These candidates wouldn’t have the opportunity to work for us if it wasn’t for programs such as these - it’s really a life changing opportunity for some that will change the trajectory of their family’s life forever.
Wow I don’t understand why people are piling on the OP. Even if he or she said something offensive, ignorant, or insensitive doesn’t mean the rest of you all need to be douchey. Sensitivity should go in all directions. It shouldn’t just be about respecting diversity of color/race but also of opinions.
And tbh I get what they were asking. I have heard of several instances where gpa requirements have been lowered to promote diversity. It is what it is.
And for the record I’m a female minority.
I think this is very well said. I don’t come from a family that has much money or class. I didn’t go to a good school. I have a hard time relating to the upper middle class. Sometimes it’s worse than others, but I do make a very genuine effort to understand and relate where I can. I appreciate that others have taken a chance on me/given me opportunities. If it weren’t for people who could overlook my non-traditional background, I’d never have had the opportunities I have now. I still feel like an impostor and that I don’t really belong, but I continue to do my best and try to enjoy the ride.
@consultant1 that’s not where I’m going. I’m saying as part of our recruiting process we are lowering our normal requirements for diverse candidates only.
I will echo MD1’s last point. I worked with and oversaw another SA who was a career switcher and quite a bit older than me (I’m not super young myself), and their work was less than stellar. We ultimately had to shield their work from the client and leadership had to make the call to cut them loose because their experience just wasn’t aligned to consulting and it showed.
Ok, what we do isn’t rocket science. It’s problem solving. Groups tend to solve problems better when there is diversity of thought...so yes, if a firm is not getting enough cultural diversity from its applicants, it’s not unreasonable to change the bar a bit to make the firm better off, even if it seems unfair to the individual candidate.
You are starting from the assumption that recruiting is an exact science, where you add up GPA, experience points, etc and get to a number, and then compare it to a threshold. That’s not how it works... You are trying to understand if someone is going to be successful once she/he joins, and there are a lot of factors that are difficult to gauge. That’s why you do interviews, and that’s where the next issue is. A lot of the outcome of an interview is based on the interviewer’s perception of the candidate, and that carries a LOT of unconscious bias. So the question is: when assessing a minority candidate, should you try to understand if part of the feedback is due to bias and not actual concerns, before you make the final decision? And the answer is obviously yes. Unfortunately that can sometimes be perceived as “lowering the bar”, or “using different standards”... but it is not. You still want candidates to be the best of the best, you are just trying to get better at finding them and increase the signal to noise ratio.
I got an interview with our strategy group having a 2.8 GPA. I graduated with a 3.0. Our requirement is 3.4. I'm still here 4 years later and a strong performer. GPA doesn't indicate performance or intellect. I intentionally navigated my way here, making sure that the recruiter understood why my GPA was that way and gave me a shot at an interview. My resume was stellar and I knew how to interview and create a story for the firm to get on board with. I had a very strong conviction that once I got an interview, I would get the job and I did. Flexibility in approach is a good thing.
You are so confident in your amazing recruiting skills that you won't post with your firm name...
To A4’s point, GPA, like SAT scores, are useful judgment metrics BUT people should keep in mind the biases inherent in what each of these measure. Neither measure ability or intellect. They are instead predictions of or outcome of scholastic achievement, which given the number of successful people who did poorly in school, should at least give everyone pause on using them as gating metrics.
I would think GPA, when all else is equal, can be a differentiator. However the college dropout $1B tech founder will be way better than the Wharton fresh grad in most business situations
I agree, I haven't seen much of a push to recruiter for people over 6'2" as in past years.
@OP Thank you for this post. Had an interview with KPMG recently and could not figure out why the interviewer dismissed my experience as soon as the interview started. Interviewer continued discussing their background, KPMG and stressed the quality of deliverables. Interviewer never gave me a chance to discuss my background. I’ve worked for two of the four Big 4, so was confused as to why the interview took this direction. I subsequently removed myself from the interview process. But, now it all makes sense. What a blessing in disguise!
Lastly, if this is your thought process in hiring (lowering requirements for diversity candidates), hate to see what work life looks like at KPMG once a POC is hired.