The value is that they hire a ton of people with a very low bar. The smartest go into investment research, the next lot go into sales, the next into marketing,

The value is that they hire a ton of people with a very low bar. The smartest go into investment research, the next lot go into sales, the next into marketing, the rest into admin. The effect, I believe, is two-fold: one, these guys are cheap. And two, you don't have to rely on someone's education, you can see if they actually can function in the workplace. But this places a huge burden on actually being able to train people who aren't particularly intelligent to do a complex job and creating a team-based culture (i.e. where the sum is greater than the parts). One example of this is Aberdeen Asset Management. They went from one guy in an office to one of the largest asset managers in the UK (and the world) by hiring this way. A big part of their growth came from acquiring firms with lots of lazy Oxbridge types, firing them all, and moving in their low-cost team of guys. This isn't like what IBs do, it isn't what Jane Street. Both are highly selective, and hire into specific jobs. IBs will do a big training program over a few weeks to get everyone up to speed (i.e. on accounting, whatever) but what I am talking about is 3-month rotations through every part of the business. HR at IBs hire "geniuses", they hire the best of the best...if you do this, it makes no sense to pay them a big salary and then stick them in the back office (they will probably get poached). Now most of these people aren't actually any good, most will get promoted up to VP because they have been there X years, and then get laid off during a recession...but the hiring culture is totally different (and btw, massively overstates the ability of HR too). And btw, it is semi-efficient because most IBs understand they will end up with a bunch of overpaid turnips...it is worth it to find the next rainmaker (but the rainmaker in asset management never pays off because they get poached).