#41 ·
Maybe it’s just because I also graduated from Harvard Business School, so 🙂 I don't know, but looking through the coverage in both USA Today and Yahoo, I haven't seen anything that points toward this being anything other than a standard research study rather than actual job testing.
And honestly, I’m glad someone finally called out how unethical and unprofessional it is to leak this kind of data to the public—regardless of whether it was meant as research or part of a hiring process. I truly hope the women responsible for publishing these figures realize that they won't see another candidate apply for a role anytime soon. Let alone, say, a "bad" candidate (though I find their definition of "bad" highly questionable given the criteria they used to label them).
Not to mention, if I were one of their clients, I’d be asking some very pointed questions: just how secure is my confidential data once it's in their hands? And more importantly, how competent are they at actually doing the job they’re paid for when they either a) hire people from a talent pool labeled with "concerning knowledge," or b) fail to hire anyone because the candidates aren't "up to par," leaving them to handle an ever-growing workload entirely on their own?
Moving on—I would add that there is a fundamental difference between applicants applying to Ernst & Young or any other Big 4 firm (since we're discussing them here) versus those applying to a boutique firm like Deloitte. I’m not suggesting Deloitte isn't high quality; it’s just that as a smaller local player, they simply don't offer the same path to global advancement. Consequently, they likely attract a different subset of people from the massive pool of annual business graduates.
When you combine that with the fact that they didn't release comparable results for other professions—like medicine or agronomy, for instance—you're left with a non-representative sample that tells us absolutely nothing.
Then there’s the whole issue regarding the quality of our education system, where you practically have to teach yourself everything just to emerge as a viable candidate in the job market...
And honestly, I’m glad someone finally called out how unethical and unprofessional it is to leak this kind of data to the public—regardless of whether it was meant as research or part of a hiring process. I truly hope the women responsible for publishing these figures realize that they won't see another candidate apply for a role anytime soon. Let alone, say, a "bad" candidate (though I find their definition of "bad" highly questionable given the criteria they used to label them).
Not to mention, if I were one of their clients, I’d be asking some very pointed questions: just how secure is my confidential data once it's in their hands? And more importantly, how competent are they at actually doing the job they’re paid for when they either a) hire people from a talent pool labeled with "concerning knowledge," or b) fail to hire anyone because the candidates aren't "up to par," leaving them to handle an ever-growing workload entirely on their own?
Moving on—I would add that there is a fundamental difference between applicants applying to Ernst & Young or any other Big 4 firm (since we're discussing them here) versus those applying to a boutique firm like Deloitte. I’m not suggesting Deloitte isn't high quality; it’s just that as a smaller local player, they simply don't offer the same path to global advancement. Consequently, they likely attract a different subset of people from the massive pool of annual business graduates.
When you combine that with the fact that they didn't release comparable results for other professions—like medicine or agronomy, for instance—you're left with a non-representative sample that tells us absolutely nothing.
Then there’s the whole issue regarding the quality of our education system, where you practically have to teach yourself everything just to emerge as a viable candidate in the job market...
