Where should all the ibankers go?

• How should prospective ibankers at Yale adjust their plans to account for the current financial crisis?
• Why do 40% of Yalies choose to work in finance and consulting after graduation?
• What's the best way to put your Yale education to use?

This week’s discussion topic, always of interest to Yalies, seems particularly appropriate in light of the Wall Street collapse, as well as a recent flurry of Roundtable emails concerning a recent controversial article in the American Scholar by William Deresiewicz (“The Disadvantages of an Elite Education”). Every year a full 40% of all Yale graduates start work in consulting or finance. The central question of the night was to what extent these individuals are fulfilling their own potential and that of their Yale education.

So why do so many Yalies choose to spend 100 hours a week moving money back and forth? To be sure, there’s a financial incentive—ibankers can expect to bring in a handy salary—but can we really believe that 40% of our graduates are interested in nothing but a hefty paycheck? We raised a number of alternatives tonight. For one, Yalies tend to be goal-oriented, and to a certain mentality ibanking represents the culmination of a long structured path. It’s a way to guarantee success without high levels of risk—a possibility that’s increasingly appealing as socioeconomic diversity increases at Yale, and more students are concerned about supporting their families and paying their student loans. On the other hand, the popularity of consulting in particular may have more to do with the orientation of our skills towards more creative and analytical thinking methods (rather than specialized knowledge). Finally, we considered that the finance/consulting culture may be self-perpetuating, and therefore independent of any specific cultural phenomena at Yale.

But there may be more subtle cultural factors leading Yalies towards the investment banks. Has our nation lost its moral fortitude, leaving college students uncertain of what career would best reflect their personal ethos? Are we victims of a national culture idolizing the pursuit of money above all else? Perhaps Yalies intuitively recognize that consulting and ibanking may soon some of the supplant traditional avenues to financial and political power.

So why are so many of us uncomfortable with this trend? Do we have an instinctive aversion to following a preset track? Perhaps we feel that Yalies ought to be inspired visionaries willing to take risks for the sake of their ideas. We want Yale to be a community full of students with, as Joe put it, “intensity and forcefulness of character.” We don’t want Yale to feel constraining; we don’t want to feel guided down a secure track.

But Beth raised the point that the difference between working for the Peace Corps and McKinsey may be one of scale rather than efficacy. Similar skills are employed in both cases, and both in their own way contribute to global prosperity. And, as John Behan noted, it’s unfair to define ibanking as diametrically incompatible with the qualities we’d like to emphasize in our student body. After all, the financial system is essential for the survival of the global economy, and Yale seems to prepare its students well to manage that system. But how many Yalies are genuinely passionate, “intense and forceful” about their banking careers? Probably not 40%.

Should the U.S. abolish private legal practice?

• Does private counsel create inequity in our judicial system?
• Would federalizing legal counsel subvert the judicial pursuit of truth?
• Can we justify prohibiting citizens from using their wealth in their own legal defense?

What is a criminal lawyer? Redundant.

But the Roundtable discussion of lawyers this week certainly wasn’t, and in two hours we explored a remarkable range of topics and perspectives. One of the first challenges we addressed was to determine the proper priority of the justice system. We settled on a dichotomy of purpose—on the one hand, to achieve equitable treatment for all participants in the system; and on the other, to determine the truth of each case. Then we considered the potential effects of federalizing legal counsel for either objective.

With respect to determining truth, we observed that by paying lawyers more (in the private system) we create a market system that maximizes the ability of lawyers to win cases. But winning cases may even detract from the overall truth accuracy of the system, since distortion of the facts can play a pivotal role in swaying a jury. One method of better determining truth would be to ensure that every case is represented not necessarily by the best, but by equally qualified counsel on both sides. A public system would certainly be better equipped to accomplish that objective. And by ensuring equality of counsel, we would also eliminate the socioeconomic disparity inevitable in a private system—thus coming closer to the “equitable treatment” objective. Eliminating or reducing free market competition therefore might decrease the overall quality of lawyers while increasing the quality of justice.

Our own John Behan noted, however, that the power of money is difficult to stem—for instance, even if participation in a public legal system were mandatory, a wealthy individual could contribute to his own case by hiring private consultants.

The alternative seems to be raising the salaries of public attorneys so as to allow closer competition with the private sector, and one proposal suggested that we tax private firms and allocate the revenue to the public attorney system. Though difficulties certainly remain with this proposal, it seems to approach the two objectives we identified without sacrificing practicality.

One significant diversion from the thrust of the argument deserves recognition here, namely the hypothetical implementation of a “Justice Supercomputer”. This device would weigh evidence according to a strict predefined code and assign sentences accordingly. The Supercomputer would eliminate potential biases in the implementation of the law, thereby enhancing our pursuit of equity in justice. The significance of this argument is the question of whether the human justice system ought to approximate this proposal as closely as possible. Objections included a concern that justice isn’t universal—that a jury ought to be able to override laws that the community deems inappropriate due to special circumstances. With consideration for our appeals process, the “human element” allows for both tragedies like the Emmett Till case and seemingly necessary precautions (like the socioeconomic injustice inherent in the outlawing of sleeping under bridges). Are we comfortable allowing such exceptions, or is it too dangerous for our society to sacrifice the consistency of justice?

Is diversity in leadership valuable?

• How does Sarah Palin's nomination affect the feminist cause?
• Is tokenism ever justifiable in politics? education? business?
• How should diversity affect Yale's hiring and admissions decisions?

Some would say that we solved the question of the night fairly early. But, as everyone who has been to a YSR discussion knows, our questions are never as straightforward as they seem. After general agreement that diversity in leadership is valuable, the group went on to discuss exactly why it is valuable. Three benefits for an organization (which could also apply to a government) were 1. The benefit to public relations, i.e. it looks good to have a diverse leadership 2. The benefit to the organization in its efforts to address different groups in society, and 3. The benefits that rise from one organization setting an example to other organizations to appoint people from diverse backgrounds.

We discussed Master Lalli’s appointment as the new Master for JE, and the multitude of benefits that his appointment brings. Other case studies included applications to college, hiring security guards and principals for a high school, busing in North Carolina,

There was some discussion concerning the question of how blind we want to be. General gut reactions might often lead us to believe that in an ideal world, we might be able to remain completely blind in choosing candidates, because factors such as race and gender shouldn’t matter.

The particular type of diversity was an ongoing theme throughout the discussion. Generally, it seemed that people were of the opinion that it is not sufficient to have diversity of race or gender, but that socioeconomic background and general life experiences are extremely important. There was a question about the endurance of diversity: if you take someone from a unique culture and put him in the middle of the majority culture, will his unique perspective change so that he is more in tune with the institution?

Specifically with relation to the presidential elections, there was discussion of Palin, Clinton, and Obama. Some were concerned about voter’s reasons for supporting Clinton and Palin, specifically because there are voters who would vote for these candidates specifically (and only) because they are women. There was also discussion on the role that Palin’s gender played in McCain’s selection of his running mate.

One opinion held that America’s democracy is such that people should be allowed to choose whom they vote for, and how they decide whom they will vote for. In other words, people are free to choose whether to consider the background of each candidate. Should they choose, they can also disregard the policies of the candidate and focus solely on the background. It’s up to them.

Interesting questions that were raised but unanswered:

• Is it acceptable for an organization to hire a diverse candidate purely for a public relations advantage?
• Is it easier for people to overlook differences in race or differences in culture?
• Is diversity about everyone getting along?
• Are we trying to make everyone the same or make everyone accept differences?
• How do we feel about diversity for diversity’s sake?

Does national pride inspired by the Olympics benefit our welfare?

Yale Student Roundtable’s first discussion of the year (September 6) began with a round of introductions, which somehow managed to involve a number of squirrel-related stories. Once we moved on to meatier topics, the discussion shifted to the question of “why make a political statement through sports?” The Olympics represents soft (not hard) political power, yet in the recent games China poured vast resources into the endeavor. There was a good deal of discussion on the topic of China’s hosting the Olympics, which included the opinion that China was trying to “create a brand name” and sell China to the world.

We agreed that the political clout available to a host nation could be used for ill or good. In the case of China, the remarkable display of architecture and technology (coupled with the other exciting changes, like less restricted internet) represented attempts to showcase the glory of middle earth. The effect was powerful, judging by the response of nations around the world. But were the Games, for China, an expression of identity as a nation or simply a public relations campaign? Will societal changes from the Olympics persist in the future of the country? Similar questions apply for other medal-factory countries—can a nation justify massive expenditures on athletic training as a means of winning gold?

Another recurrent theme of the evening was the role of sports in nationalism. Some were concerned that nationalism can be detrimental to a nation, potentially masking unfortunate realities behind a façade of pride. Yet positive changes have been wrought with the nationalistic energy inspired by the Olympics. In China, was cultural heritage exhibited in a way that glorified the nation’s long history, or was it a hijacking? Perhaps nationalist sentiment, even when based on false premises, can create happiness that’s valuable for its own sake.

Finally, we dwelled for some time on the distinction of nationalism and patriotism, and the significance of both for the meaning of citizenship. Where do an athlete’s loyalties lie—with himself or his country? As athletes are increasingly free to cross borders in their schooling and training, can we still identify as strongly with our own Olympic teams? Is racial homogeneity important for national identity?

This isn’t by any means a complete account, but please—if you feel we’ve left out something important, add a comment! This is your chance to continue the conversation.