Does this article ever get around to actually explaining why its lead subject went into management consulting? It doesn't seem very interested in giving an actual answer. "They funnelled the shit out of me" is not an answer.

The answer seems to be given indirectly: they offered him interview prep, fast tracked his early career stages, and paid him a ton of money. No deep philosophical torment, they offered the kid a really good job.

No wonder they didn't want to say.

Do we ever know why we do what we do?

What’s the common good that everyone should serve, that these poor students are being funneled away from?

People have different answers to that. But there is one good question to ask: Is the job more about creating value or capturing value?

I’m glad someone pointed this out about the case study/brain teaser interviews:

> “Many wealthier students have a sense of this, he says, from parents or networks, but to low-income students—save the handful who receive coaching—it’s utterly counterintuitive. “This is one of the major ways that consulting firms—and, really, investment banking firms—block low-income students,” Portela said. For all practical purposes, the case study “is in another fucking language.”

Being raised on welfare and paying for college on my own, I hated the post-grad interview cycle because it seemed so asinine. Almost 20 years later, I’m somewhat better at knowing how to answer these questions, but I can’t help but to acknowledge the cynical side of these questions in finding surreptitious ways (either intentionally or unintentionally) discriminate against low-income candidates.

Can you give some example questions?