Chiming in as a long ago CC stalwart to say, this is one of the very few intelligent threads on this topic I’ve ever read here. The key point you all have made here - yes, there are some people who grow up in poverty who have an uncanny ability to study and understand the key behaviors of the cultures in which they find themselves. Those people tend to make very good executives. There are also people from privileged backgrounds who are NOT good at absorbing behavior patterns, their careers as executives reach a natural and sometimes painful ceiling.
Note that I say this from a career in Silicon Valley software, in which my employers ranged from very large companies, to small ones, to startups. As an even more specific note, cultural patterns and social intelligence matter not one whit in choosing a software developer, but will often determine which developers become managers, directors, vice presidents. We tolerate all kinds of natural jerks, if the talent is there.
I think the so called “elite” employers get a bum rap on CC. The one’s I know bend over backwards (now) to do things that weren’t on the radar 25 years ago. Pre-paying virtually every element of a recruiting trip- no more assuming that a kid can just put a $250 ticket on a credit card and wait to be paid back. No more assuming that a kid has an extra $30 in cash to pay for a cab from the airport. No more assuming that a college kid will know what is appropriate interview dress- our confirming email for the interview (generally a few weeks prior to the actual interview) specifies what is appropriate for a young grad interviewing at headquarters, and most don’t care what the kid wears as long as there aren’t body parts hanging out that should be covered.
The perception is that these elite employers are filled with people who came over on the Mayflower and are looking for reasons to knock the “wooden spoon” kids out of the process as early as possible and this is false on both counts.
And I will note that as an employee of a company which (gasp) still asks for SAT scores (and I’ve taken it on the chin on CC for what a terrible thing this is, elitist, ridiculous, etc) I will point out that this levels the playing field enormously for smart kids (or great test-takers, and surely these two pools overlap) vs. just hiring the bluebloods.
Reality- if you were one of the handful of “dumb but rich” or “dumb but Daddy is a Senator” or “dumb but plays a helmet sport” kids admitted your year at Elite U, employers like mine knock you out of the process early on. Is it unfair to the dumb but rich? For sure. But that means that the stellar kid from UIUC or Binghamton who has both a strong college GPA AND strong standardized test scores gets the interview slot that we didn’t give to the Dumb Rich Kid.
The handful of business functions that can operate on the “dumb but rich” model- private wealth management? selling private jets or luxury resort/other high end products where a kid can make a living calling Mummy’s friends… those aren’t the elite occupations anyway. Dumb doesn’t cut it at the white shoe law firms anymore. Dumb doesn’t cut it in management consulting.
Nice to see you, @Alumother. I used to read your blog all the time. I need to get back over there one of these days.
Lauren Rivera has an opinion piece in the Sunday Review section of the New York Times today (“Guess Who Doesn’t Fit In at Work”): http://nyti.ms/1BxwCSr
As always, the comments section is as interesting as the actual “opinion.”
There’s some interesting data on the Harvard class of 2015 at the link below. Some of it is pretty intuitive, e.g. computer science majors make more money than graduates in other fields.
A couple of statistics though seem broadly consistent with Rivera’s research - varsity athletes are more likely than non-athletes to work in consulting firms, and final club members are more likely than others to work in financial firms. This seems consistent with the idea that social capital plays some role in student interest and/or hiring in these firms, even within the pool of Harvard students.
Hi Lucie! I tend to lurk on CC these days, or hover is maybe more correct;). The blog has shifted away from fashion all the time to include house and garden. I love my readers, but I do understand that the changed focus means the crew has evolved.
@Alumother, I enjoyed your blog the most when you were discussing class/privilege issues (which was how I originally discovered it), but I’m afraid I was likely in the minority!
@bluewater2015, thank you for that link. Hard to know if those numbers reflect how many of each group applied for those types of jobs; nonetheless, it’s a fascinating read. And kudos to Harvard for being so transparent about their new graduates. I must admit I got a chuckle at the revelation that varsity athletes and final club members report cheating more than average as well:
@LucieTheLakie, likely not many athletes going for PhDs or entering the arts/literary world and a higher percentage of them (as well as finals club members) trying for finance and consulting.
The number going straight to grad school is very similar at Yale by the way, less than 20%, and there it has declined considerably over time from a high of well over 60% in the 1960s.
The 1960s high is likely due in part to people staying in school to defer getting drafted for Vietnam, but still it was over 50% into the 1970s and over 30% into the early 2000s.
If you look at how many will head to grad school within 5 years, the numbers go back to where they were. Post-college gap years have become the norm. Nobody used to take a break before law or med school.
There also used to be a time when people went directly from college into an MBA program. Today, this is almost unheard-of. Practically all applicants to MBA programs have several years of post-college work experience.
Alternatively, these particular career paths tend to appeal to people who are also attracted to varsity sports and final clubs.
Interesting points Hanna and Marian. I agree that it’s hard to know what’s behind the numbers for athletes and final club members without more data . . . just from those numbers, we don’t know if those folks are more likely to apply for jobs in consulting and finance, or if they’re more likely to be receive/accept offers from those kinds of firms once they apply, or both.
I just recalled some research from William Bowen, ex-Princeton president, on career outcomes for athletes - can’t recall if it was just for Princeton or for all Ivy League schools. He was arguing against admissions preferences for athletes but his data showed that they actually have higher incomes on average than other graduates.
I think the real news on the athlete/finals club statistics is that these folks are going to Teach For America and other popular post-grad employment at lower rates than their fellow students.
Most of the corporations I’ve worked for views athletic involvement in college (unless it’s an Olympian) as “a time consuming EC” i.e. not unlike being Editor in Chief of the campus paper, president of the major social services organization on campus, etc. I’ve never viewed being an athlete as particularly indicative of strong analytical skills or other “what counts” factors… except that when it’s combined with a strong GPA it’s evidence of the ability to multi-task. Just like dozens of other time consuming EC’s, or holding down a demanding job, or working 15+ hours a week to help pay room and board, or helping a professor edit a book.
Except it is more like 25 hrs/week plus half of your extended weekends gone and no Fall or Spring break and some will stay on campus part of the Summer.
To be a highly competitive athlete, It is more than number of hours or ability to multi task, it requires a certain mental toughness. They have to experience their triumph and defeat in front of other people. and have to push themselves beyond their limits. They are also very goal oriented and focused people. For many employers, they are very sought after traits in employees.
Yes I wouldn’t necessarily expect that athletes have stronger analytical skills, but I do think the nature of sports is such that they may tend to be higher than some others on attributes like experience working in teams, emotional intelligence, persevering despite difficulties and failures, etc., and in some jobs those things are important.
To your point blossom that’s also true for some other ECs though.
Well, I’ve never done a survey so even though I don’t claim it’s industry wide here’s my own personal experience -
Athletes definitely apply to consulting and finance in disproportionate numbers. Only 16% of Harvard students are varsity athletes but I’d guess they make up 35% of the resumes that are dropped off. I suspect one reason is that they disproportionately aren’t going to grad school or to work in education / nonprofits / technology. However, they tend to be disproportionately filtered out during the first couple rounds, mainly because they don’t clear the hurdle in terms of smarts or skills. But the ones who do make it to the final rounds are usually very good candidates - great combination of smarts, drive, interpersonal skills. Most especially drive. I’d guess they’re 15% of the people we hire.
The Harvard numbers that were linked above come from a self-reported survey. But if you use them and do the math you see that varsity athletes make up 16% of the Harvard student body but about 25% of the people who go to work in consulting. It seems like consulting firms have a bias to hire athletes but the clear majority of their hires didn’t play on a varsity team.
Personally, I tend to think that if someone didn’t do some significant extracurriculars in school and (should have) devoted their energy to studying, then their academics had better be d*mn good - and not just gradewise.
As to final clubs - I don’t think I’ve ever seen a resume where someone listed what final club they were in. If anything, I’d guess it’d be a net negative to write it on your resume. Doesn’t mean that the final club members don’t tend to come from wealthy families, but I really don’t think that being a member per se helped them get their job offers. Oh, and there’s a strong male / female bias both in final club membership and kids who go to work in finance, so the baseline rate that the article cites should be adjusted.
