Is there a correlation between 'poshness' and landing a job in Investment Banking?

I see a lot of talk these days about how graduate schemes for investment banking or consultancy discriminate against people from working class backgrounds because they aren't 'posh' and therefore do not fit in with the culture of the firm. For example, there was that BBC programme a couple of weeks back called "How to Break into the Elite" where they discuss this exact problem as if it is fact. Is there any weight to this argument? Is a candidate who isn't posh really far less likely to get the job than someone who is?

I don't see many counter-arguments to this, but I think there are a few problems with it. I think a big factor is that there are huge cultural differences between the rich and poor that contribute to the divide. I come from a lower-middle class background and I had never even heard of investment banking or consultancy until recently, where as a lot of rich parents might push their children into investment banking. If I went around my neighbourhood and asked people if they knew what investment banking was I guarantee not many people would know. So surely this plays a role in the smaller numbers of working class employed in high finance.

Secondly, if there was a correlation between poshness and getting employed, why are Durham, Edinburgh, Bristol, and St. Andrews all only semi targets when they have a huge number of privately educated students? Newcastle and Buckingham also have a very high proportion of privately educated students but they probably aren't even semi target. There are actually less privately educated students in the LSE and Warwick than in the first four that I mentioned, and in fact Warwick has less than Newcastle and Buckingham. However, in the LSE's case it is probably because many of the students there are international students. Still though, does that make a difference? Surely these international students aren't being discriminated against. The same argument could be made for the Big 3 firms in consulting which are almost exclusively restricted to Oxbridge and the LSE. It would seem that academic capacity plays a more significant role. Here are the statistics: https://media.thetab.com/blogs.dir/90/files/2018/02/text-poster-paper-flyer-brochure.jpeg (they are outdated by a few years but it is still useful).

Those are just my two cents. I'm not arguing that there is no link to poshness, but I just don't believe it is as strong a link as people make it out to be. That said, I've never been employed in an investment bank so what do I know. I'd love to hear what other people have to think

Interesting points you have raised.

Posh is not the determining factor by any means - but being 'posh' is probably an indicator of closer alignment to traits that successful people within Investment Banking commonly have, say for example - prior experience from an early age, strong role-models such as parents (working in professional sectors, high household income), well-established networks via parents or school, attended high-performing schools, some prior-awareness of what an Investment Bank is and possibly their recruitment processes. But the most important factor for IBD tends to be high academic achievement - which opens the door for those who are not necessarily 'posh'

I know this may seem pedantic, but within IBD there is a lot of emphasis on 'polish' (rather than just 'posh') - and there was a fantastic report in 2016 which was heavily researched that highlights some of the things happening within recruitment for front office roles for those from privileged and non-privileged backgrounds. Some people might know it as the brown shoes report. It is rather dense, but from page 54 (key findings) onwards provides some fascinating insight into this area https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/549994/Socio-economic_diversity_in_life_sciences_and_investment_banking.pdf