PE GPA on cycle
for on cycle recruiting, at what gpa does gpa not make a difference at MF and UMM? is it worth it for a senior to push a 3.6 to 3.7 at semitarget or should they relax, etc?
Trending Content
| +40 | What did you do after signing? | 13 | 1d | |
| +31 | What is GS Private Equity like? | 30 | 2s | |
| +26 | PE / IB in NYC from Cambridge compared to US colleges | 26 | 2d | |
| +26 | PE Recruiting From IB- Play It Safe Or Reach For Best Fund Possible? | 11 | 3d | |
| +25 | Resume Gap after 2.5 Years in PE | 6 | 1h | |
| +24 | Where is there untapped value in secondaries? | 14 | 2d | |
| +21 | Thoughts on Bain Capital and Warburg Pincus special sits groups? | 9 | 5m | |
| +19 | How Technical Are You / Most People Really? | 3 | 6d | |
| +19 | VP HF Lateral to PE | 1 | 5d | |
| +16 | Management Meeting Dynamic | 3 | 4d |
Career Resources
Don't want to steal this but also do PE firms ask for transcripts to see grades?
Unfortunately, you chose a path where “relax” is never the right option. On cycle is extremely competitive, every positive data point helps
whats the range of GPAs at MF
If you’re serious, then yes, maximize your GPA. And take the GMAT. MF is an uphill climb with your profile.
have a 2340/2400 on SAT, is GMAT still important?
Yes, Most importantly because it will serve you well for the future since once you're in banking you're not going to have time to study properly, but also because it shows headhunters that you know what you're doing.
say I achieve stellar grades in an msf program - will my undergrad gpa hold me back ?
With reference to the GMAT, what score would they want to see?
For MF and UMM? I'm really going to be nitpicking here, but given how competitive it is to even get an interview for these jobs everything is on the margin. Under 700: Red flag 700-720: Low, but acceptable 730-740: Solid 750+: Impressive
is there a huge difference between 3.8 and 3.9 (or 4.0) from a top target / good banking group? or is it just a tick in the box thing..
Wondering this too
Tick the box. I had a 4.0 and I don't think my experience would have been any different with a 3.9. 3.8 is where it can start being negative though, and anything below 3.8 is a red flag.
After a 3.7+, I don't think GPA matters that much if you come from a top group that historically places into top funds.
thanks! do recruiters rank candidates in the same group even if it's a top group?
Probably? Shouldn't make a huge difference unless the other candidates in your group are truly exceptional.
Yes
I didn't participate in on cycle, so take this with a grain of salt. I have seen dozens of UMM/MF PE associate resumes and have discussed this topic with H/S b-school buddies.
Headhunters score your profile. I don't know what formula it is. It could be 50 points for resume, 25 points for deal experience & technical skills, 25 points for behavioral & fit. Diversity and personal connections are extra credit. The earlier you recruit, the more they rely on your resume. They're risk averse.
Your resume consists of your banking group (most important), school, GPA, scores, former internships, etc. Allocate the points how you may and be realistic in scoring yourself.
The top ~10 or so funds interview whoever they want. There are enough candidates that score perfect or near perfect on the HH rubric that those candidates fill most interview slots. That only leaves a handful of spots for 3.7s GPAs, or semi-targets, or mid-tier banking groups.
There may be 25 UMM funds. Some candidates that score near perfect will land in these funds - maybe they wanted a direct promotion opportunity, maybe they got the offer the first day and took it. A 3.7 semi-target at BAML is an acceptable profile, but it certainly is not above average.
Re-orient your brain for what is good enough, as you now have a new comp set. People will say that a 3.7 is the cutoff for banking. There are 5x as many investment banking analysts as there are UMM/MF PE spots. Your entire competition now has BB / EB banking, 3.5+ GPAs. Top PE firms can, and will, be selective enough to differentiate between a 3.7 and a 3.9, and between Boston College and Wharton. You have no actual work experience yet, and they have limited resources to conduct interviews.
It's your choice on how to allocate your time. If you have a 3.6 from a semi-target and want UMM / MF interviews, you better believe that having a 780 GMAT will help your resume. Maybe you decide an extra 2 points on your HH rubric isn't worth it because you think the time is better spent elsewhere, or maybe you aren't sure you can get a 750+ in the first place. It's not a decision someone on WSO can make for you.
This is less relevant in the MM, where having a solid banking group alone is sufficient at most places. There are just more seats in MM PE.
But for the love of god, please no more of the "my profile is x y z, should I take the GMAT or try to improve my GPA."
If you profile is “average”, would you recommend recruiting off cycle or perhaps waiting a year to acquire deal experience? Could this mitigate the less-than-stellar resume? Thanks!
Also interested in this
My sample size on this is much smaller so it is hard for me to say with certainty. The timeline has moved up so recently that recruiting as a second year has only been common for the last year or two.
I don't think your profile changes dramatically as a second year analyst, versus a first year. It can improve if you work on multiple $10bn+ deals, or it can be weaker if you haven't closed one at all.
The benefit of recruiting as a second year is that you have more time to develop on the analytical and fit side (the other 50%, that I outlined). You should have a stronger foundation of financial modeling concepts and well developed reasons for why you want PE and what you are looking in your next role. I recommend this route for those who have limited technical or investing experience and are simply following the herd mentality of private equity recruiting. Harder to say whether that will tangibly lead to interviews at larger funds.
I can't speak to growth/VC interview processes. My understanding is that the top 10 funds are equally selective (if not more) than the top PE funds. I would recommend checking LinkedIn of your target funds and reviewing the associate profiles.
Does this apply to tech investing Growth/VC roles or is there more flexibility there?
Quae nihil accusamus optio doloribus accusamus totam. Occaecati error eos suscipit pariatur esse.
Quasi ullam fugiat id eaque esse tenetur facilis sed. Nihil maxime mollitia illum hic est earum. Aspernatur quis libero maxime neque. Porro asperiores ipsa voluptas debitis maxime quia. Illum quia similique officiis in.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Magni sit ut at porro ut voluptatem. Et similique dolores dolor. Enim ad deserunt sed.
Voluptatum vel facilis ea. Explicabo nam fugit cupiditate molestiae maxime. Consequatur doloribus explicabo quis nam consequatur eum pariatur ex. Voluptates non odio architecto magnam doloribus unde sint.
Laborum doloremque vel vel voluptate in debitis iste dolor. Alias laboriosam soluta odit rerum et provident et. Laborum maxime ipsa dolores suscipit.
Molestias aut suscipit sit nihil. Quasi eum aliquid asperiores ipsam ea ut ut. Ducimus et vel iure. Qui sint voluptas hic eos incidunt omnis distinctio. Quis perferendis provident repellendus.