To some extent, it doesn't really matter what they select for. If anything, I think they're selecting for an ability to figure out the rules and "play the game."
i.e. if you can't figure out a way to work the system to get into a top school and get a > 3.5 GPA, you're not going to be able to navigate client politics on a consulting project. Similarly, if you can find a way to make yourself seem really interesting on your resume, you'll probably be able to present yourself in a polished way to a VP at your bank.
If you're a hacker who doesn't want to "play the game" (i.e. you skip college, or go to a state university for free), it's likely that you're not going to be a good fit for these kinds of big firms.
You're right, but my contention is that the "work" is the relatively easy part - the hard part is navigating the social/political context in which the work is being done.
This may sound incredibly silly, but if a giant Fortune 500 company contracts with you for a huge consulting project, it doesn't matter if you're "right" - if the "right" answer isn't one that's relevant/applicable/palatable to them.
My argument is that being able to "play the game" under the unspoken rules that your future employer sets out is a useful signal for being able to "play the game" with the unspoken rules/strings a client attaches to a contract.
> As an employee of a big consulting firm, I'll second that. How and who you present your ideas to is much more important than the ideas themselves.
My wife actually works in procurement for a pretty big European oil company, and she had the "chance" to attend a couple of pitch presentations made by BCG, McKinsey and a few others for a "green energy" thingie. You're right, after all was said and done the company CEO was positively more impressed by the guys who looked and acted better during the presentations, and not necessarily by those who had the better ideas but had presented them more nervously. Also, having the looks (no matter if you're man or female) and height helps a lot.
You seem to not even understand the game. "Counterproductive" contains normative, technocratic assumptions. It assumes that everybodies goals are to maximize work output, and that everything around that is 'overhead' or 'useless'.
For example, one may assume that when a client comes asking for certain work to be done, that the result of that work is the only thing that matters. Which may or may not be the case. It may be equally important that the impression the client makes executing this project is more important than what is actually produced; or the process of the project rather than the output; or other things still. Scoffing at what may naively be perceived as second-order effects being on equal footing with the 'real' output is imo one of the engineer's negative reflexes (I'm one myself, and I do this, although less than I used to when I didn't realize it even existed).
However, "the work being done", is now "get paid as much as possible, while bribing government officials to cover our losses". And for this work, they are choosing exactly the right kinds of candidates.
You seem to believe that working hard and creating things that actually benefit society are what is rewarded most by that society. This belief is fair, reasonable, and wrong.
Of course social games are extremely counterproductive, but that doesn't negate the fact that the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
Not necessarily. If you're a big consulting firm, then your entire profit could come from landing contracts. How do you land contracts? You play social games. As for doing the work, that's why you hire subcontractors and send off a few people to supervise.
This allows you to take on a lot of projects whilst still maintaining a strong sales force to bring in new projects.
i.e. if you can't figure out a way to work the system to get into a top school and get a > 3.5 GPA, you're not going to be able to navigate client politics on a consulting project. Similarly, if you can find a way to make yourself seem really interesting on your resume, you'll probably be able to present yourself in a polished way to a VP at your bank.
If you're a hacker who doesn't want to "play the game" (i.e. you skip college, or go to a state university for free), it's likely that you're not going to be a good fit for these kinds of big firms.