Recruiting seniors who enter consulting or investment-banking are often charged to have somehow entered a Faustian contract and sold their souls to the devil. Sure, I have met people upon whom I wish the proletarian revolution, but on the other end of the materialist spectrum sit social-justice advocates who attack recruiting seniors with a vengeance that makes the Intifada look like a bunch of PBH counselors. Hearing some of the charges waged against recruiting seniors makes me grateful for the fire codes which have prevented those social justice advocates from holding candlelight vigils in front of their dorm rooms.

If the entire world consisted of 100 people, 67 would be poor.

In any case, most of us, I suspect, fall between these two extremes. "I have no clue," said one of my recruiting senior friends when I asked him what he wanted to do after Harvard. "I want to do something useful. Something where I can help people."

Fifty-five would have an annual income of less than $600.

If my friend is any indication, Harvard students are not selfish. The Phillips Brooks House Association logs 1,700 annual volunteers. HAND and City Step also draw many volunteers. By the time they graduate as seniors, well over two-thirds have entered some type of public service activity or another. Harvard students generally want to leave their mark upon this world and public service is perhaps one of the most meaningful ways to do that.

Still, too many seniors recruit. Why?

By examining two main rationales seniors use and then looking for the underlying structural cause, I will argue that the high level of corporate recruiting is based in the shortcomings of the University rather than the greed of individual students.

Fifty would be homeless or live in substandard housing.

First, a little terminology for convenience. Fervent social justice advocates will henceforth be referred to as "Birkenstocks." Recruiters will be called "Guccis." That will make the following discussion easier, I hope, and more fun.

The first justification for corporate recruiting is individual. For most students recruiting this term, social justice and corporate recruiting are not mutually exclusive and so going into the private sector is not necessarily blameworthy.

In one sense, a consultant in Michigan may devise sound and efficient management strategies which will save thousands of jobs. Guccis help more people than a Birkenstock comforting a dozen battered women. Isn't saving the jobs of several hundred garment workers through streamlining management akin to a Birkenstock ladling soup to 40 homeless clients?

In another sense, Guccis plan to give back to the community. They plan to volunteer on weekends. The most ambitious ones plan to first achieve financial security, cultivate connections in the business world, and then make a break for public service by pulling strings in high places to attract funding for their own non-profit.

Forty-seven would be illiterate.

The flaw with the mutual exclusivity argument lies in intent. Guccis do not and cannot enter a corporate job with the intent of bettering the lives of others. As a result, if efficiency called for layoffs, Guccis must recommend that path. In this sense, social justice and corporate employment may not be mutually exclusive like oil and water, but it is not complementary like peanut butter and jelly.

The second justification deserves more examination. Guccis plan to give back to their community in their private life. But very few actually end up breaking out of the private sector because doing so entails a massive pay cut. By the time most Guccis consider such a move, they have responsibilities to their children, their spouses. They have a mortgage and their spending has risen to match income. Luxuries become necessities. As Jerry Seinfeld says, "You can't go back to coach once you've flown first-class."