On only a few campuses.
And so begins this Harvard Business Review article, written by Lauren Rivera. The story spotlights the recruiting practices of top-tier investment banks, law firms and management consulting firms, which reveal a striking reliance on a small number of 'elite' core schools. The argument for such practices include efficiency, prestige and reputation, and a strong belief in the admissions practices of the core schools.
The first argument is indisputable. Looking for candidates at 3-5 schools is undoubtably faster than looking for candidates at a broader range of campuses. Prestige and reputation are more subjective, but are seen as necessary elements in the world of top-tier professional firms. The last argument is the most troubling. Firms defend their narrow recruiting practices by passing the buck to school admissions processes, which have been shown to be disturbingly biased. It is a small wonder that diversity in the workplace has become an issue when top companies are relying on biased and often, very homogenous pools of talent.
It's time to re-think archaic and subjective hiring practices - are tradition and prestige worth missing top talent from diverse backgrounds?