Do Investment Banks really care about your SAT Scores?
I mean these tests were taken over 4+ years ago. Are you asked for these scores in the applications?
Trending Content
| +117 | Is my life over after not getting GS? | 28 | 1s | |
| +70 | Best IB group on the Street | 32 | 10m | |
| +65 | Thoughts and tips on how to speak like an investment banker. | 25 | 16h | |
| +58 | BIG FOUR ARE PARADISE | 15 | 16h | |
| +48 | Tell me one good reason why Jefferies isn’t going to be a top bank in the next 5 years | 23 | 8h | |
| +36 | UBS Outlook | 28 | 1d | |
| +35 | How to deal with egotistical team? | 6 | 3d | |
| +33 | Highest Paid Bankers in Toronto? | 51 | 13h | |
| +29 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 13 | 34m | |
| +26 | Very ridiculous interview feedback | 13 | 1h |
Career Resources
no
Online Applications: Yes. They normally do. Resume: Don't put it unless its 2100+
In the end, its one of the many factors that they take into account when judging applicants. If two applicants (or several) were all similar to each other, SAT is just another thing that they can use to ding the kid with the 1900. This is for when they look through their pile of applications online.
Ive even had a friend land a first round interview where the interviewer asked why he hadnt put his SAT score on it.
Just dont think too much about it.
I think a general rule is that the farther out of high school you get, the less relevant it becomes. For instance, if you're a sophomore applying to summer analyst positions within the bulge bracket, it's probably going to be some kind of factor because you only have 2-3 semesters of college under your belt. If you're a junior, probably less so, and if you're a senior in the full-time recruiting process, monumentally less so. I have, however, heard of bankers being asked why their SAT score wasn't on their resume during PE recruiting back before the recession. I think that's a hangover from when the test was on the 1600 scale and was used as a determining factor in college admissions (before there was all this fluff about looking at an applicant's "total package"). People who grew up in an atmosphere where good high school grades and a 1500+ put you in immediate contention at HYP aren't used to one where a 2200+ might not get you into those same schools anymore.
Wait, there are sophomores that can reasonably assume they have a shot at BB SA positions (not talking about the "my dad is an MD here" types)?
If directly out of college: yes. Obviously you only put them on if they are ~98-99 percentile. You wont be hurt by not having them though
My two most recent HF positions asked me for my SAT breakdown. I've never heard of anyone being asked this for banking, but I think depending on the manager of the fund, it may be a factor in the HF space. My boss has some misguided desire to create a culture he thinks if "brainy" or "intellectual," and for whatever reason he thinks that how one does on a high school exam is an important enough gauge in that he'll actually ask during an interview. Weird, IMO, but it happened twice, so I'm assuming at least some people care, though I'd be surprised to hear about that in banking.
I would agree with one of the above posters and say that it can help if it's high enough (2100+), especially in the case of a low GPA.
I use SAT scores to help screen candidates. I don't think the fact that the score is 3-4 years old makes it any less relevant. If someone got a 2300+ in high school, I'll bet he's still pretty smart today.
wow this post definitely helped. I'm a incoming freshman and since my high school GPA isn't appealing enough, maybe it's time for me to boost up the SAT score?
Sounds like you've already taken the SAT and are committed to a college? Then no need to retake. Just focus on getting good grades in your college courses over retaking.
Hi there and thanks for the comment! I am still waiting for the college that's my top choice, so not yet committed to a college. I know BB like GS still requires SAT scores, thus making me a bit concerned.
Agreed with above posters. It's another metric to measure. Is it outdated by SA time? Probably, but if you did very well then, you most likely are a smart individual if everything else in your resume checks out and is impressive as well.
You can always make the argument "oh I didn't study" "I somehow became a lot smarter" "had a huge change of heart and focused on getting good grades and trying harder" which are great. Make those arguments through networking and calls. A guy looking at your resume won't care to think twice if it's a bad score because he already flipped through ten 2300+ HYPSM juniors by then. So post it if it'll help you, don't if you think it'll ding or hurt you.
Thanks for the comment! I'll consider your suggestion. However I am planning to get my hands on GMAT before I start college this summer, and I feel like it's never early to get my hands onto this. A novice like me really needs thoughts on such situations. So any sugguestion is appreciated!
Why do some banks ask for SAT scores? (Originally Posted: 09/26/2012)
What is the point? My logic is that we took it four to five years ago, so it should not matter, but then again, I am just a student...
They sometimes weed people out with
[quote=Husky32]They sometimes weed people out with
The best explanation that I've heard, in so many words, is that GPA is a "good" metric of acumen and endurance, while SAT is a "good" metric of raw intelligence. I.e., a 3.7 demonstrates commitment and drive over time, and a 2300 demonstrates a large intellectual capacity (i.e., that you're a quick learner, can handle new concepts, etc.).
Obviously, neither point is entirely accurate, but it's not the worst approach.
I second the other posts about it just being an extra screener which is quite BS, but so is life; get used to it.
One of the contacts in my network, MD at BB, says SAT is used just as another way to ding applicants, just like GPA. I made the same point you did about taking the test four years ago and people change over time, and he really didn't have an answer. However, he did say, GPA is much, much more crucial to an application than SAT scores, which is obvious.
a hiring manager explained to me: we are looking for IQ. SAT is not quite the same as IQ but they work with what they can get.
You can study for the SAT. I do not think a score around 2100 always indicates raw intelligence. I know plenty of people with average intelligence who took KAPLAN courses and bumped their scores up from ~1800 to ~2100.
I would argue that having the foresight to recognize your weaknesses and take steps to work on them (or at least mitigate them) is a pretty good characteristic of a 'smart' person.
But yes, it's just an extra metric, just like GPA, although less important. If it's not on someone's resume, I won't automatically assume it's a low score, but if two resumes are identical except one has a good SAT score and the other has it missing, I'm picking the good SAT score. So it can work for you, assuming you have a good score.
How much will my SAT scores hold me back?
I was such a different person when I took them that I don't think they accurately judge my intelligence or capabilities. In fact my intelligence quotient and SAT scores don't seem to correlate whatsoever.
As a sophomore this is the one thing that is really inhibiting me from having the courage and drive to pursue IB fully. Given that I put my heart and soul into becoming a candidate for IB over the next few years will I still have a chance coming from a non target?
Keep in mind that my SAT scores were subpar to the point that I think my resume would be trashed on the sight of them.
Then don't put them on. This my advice to kids with poor GPAs, too. Most guys reading resumes will throw away yours if the is no GPA listed. But if you've got a shitty enough GPA that listing it will ALWAYS get you dinged, then it's worth keeping it off. Even if only 1 in 10 guys will read a resume with no GPA, you're better off. I think it's reasonable to assume that having no SAT listed will not cause as many readers to ding you. So keep it off, even if the rules of the resume drop say to list it.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
I guess my best course of action will be to try and compensate for it by working harder to improve my resume in other areas. Can't change the past now.
As stated above, it's another (standardized) academic metric for banks to use. Most successful kids have high SAT scores, but if you've done well in college, you probably won't be dinged for an interview because of your SAT score.
Good luck
Because HR is populated by a bunch of retarded sorority girls who spend their time making up idiotic rules like minimum SAT scores until some trader is stupid enough to not wear a condom and they retire.
Does your SAT score make you a better analyst? No. Does anyone care? No.
Why am I still getting asked about my SAT scores? (Originally Posted: 02/28/2013)
I was at a MM NYC superday a couple weeks ago, and I got asked my SAT scores during one of the interviews. Are the interviewers just curious, or is it something they actually use to compare candidates?
Many top-level employers (DE Shaw, Goldman, etc.) still require SAT scores on your resume. I'm guessing it can only hurt you (they probably expect >2100). Having a really high SAT score but going to a non-target could prove you went because of personal choice rather than because you didn't get in anywhere else.
This worries me
That's a pretty odd question for a banking interview. Consultants on the other hand want to know the scores of every standardized test you've taken during the course of your life. I'm sure it gets brought up, but if you're already at the superday, there are far more important factors at play; namely, your performance in the interview. If you're not happy with your SAT score, I really wouldn't stress about it.
It's because even if the SAT is a poor measurement of intelligence and or/job performance, it's something that everyone has taken and so the only thing that everyone can be compared fairly on (whereas GPAs can vary from school to school due to grade inflation/deflation). Not defending it, but that's my understanding. I don't think it's an important factor in the process.
That makes sense. This year was the first time they recruited for SA spots at my school, so they were probably trying to gauge the inflation/deflation. I probably didn't help the cause considering my low SAT's and relatively high gpa.
Does anybody want to be in my SAT club?
Only if we're talking about the old sat scale
Get used to it, I still have it on my resume.
Just a heads up that headhunters will STILL ask for your SAT scores for buyside recruiting. That number is going to live with you for a while.
I'm glad I'm above 2100. (Just made it)
Would someone with a terrible SAT score be obliged to do a retake? How would that look? Pretty bad I imagine
What about if you're between 2000 and 2100? Are you screwed?
Is the ACT acceptable?
Have any of you retaken it in college just for this purpose?
I'm pretty happy with my score, but I wasn't aware that this was a possibility.
Since the topic is under discussion. Should I retake the SAT if I got an 1850? I was in the hospital all sophomore year and half of junior year and missed out on so much education and basically BSed some online courses to keep up to speed. Should I just tell them this and not bother or what?
Do they wanted superscored or single-sitting?
You can probably retake the SATs (seriously). Pretty funny. It's nice having above a 2200.
What if you've never taken the SAT, only the ACT?
how do banks ask for your SAT's? (Originally Posted: 09/05/2012)
...
i just superscored my sat scores.
Are colleges still doing it that way these days? If so, do the same on your resume.
Test 1 -- 710 verbal, 740 math (1450) Test 2 -- 770 verbal, 710 math (1480) Equals -- 1510 overall
You just list it on your resume, honor system.
Is it necessary to put test scores on resumes? Why does a test that I took 3-4 years ago bear so much weight?
Vice versa, if you're at a nontarget and have a 2300+ SAT, there are probably some compelling reasons why you went to a nontarget.
banks DGAF about SAT scores
Weren't you asking about how hard it would be to get into ib out of Umichigan LAC? Regardless of whether or not you are indeed correct, should you really be commenting about what banks do or don't give a fuck about?
where do you list SATs? in HS? or under current college?
Would you recommend that I list SAT II's? 760+ on Math II and B/C/P
my school (AWSP) probably isn't a target but what does a 2300+ show about me?
This is getting ridiculous. Just slap the damn thing on there and forget about it. You should be busting ass networking, building EC's, getting solid grades, reading books that relate to your career goals, etc., etc. This SAT business is such a small part of your resume. A word of advice: worry about variables that you can change and control, not test scores.
Why do banks even ask for SAT? (Originally Posted: 07/15/2015)
Monkeys,
I'm currently applying for full time and have reached out to several people to gain insight to the process. I've noticed that Lazard in particular likes to ask for resume in addition to having SAT scores attached. Can someone explain the rationale behind that? I think just like investing, past performance is not indicative of future results. For further color, I got a 1630 (with no prepping whatsoever - 1st try - not proud) but graduated top 2% out of 610 from my high school. I didn't see the importance of the standardize test because I was automatically accepted to one of the top business school in my state. If I had to do it again, of course I would aim for 2000+ by putting in more effort but I'm not going to dwell on the past.
More background: My current resume has two boutique investment banking internship, equity research, and private wealth management roles. GPA is 3.63 and I have a few leadership roles.
My question is how should I spin this if Lazard is my top choice but the SAT is coming back to bite me in the ass.
Some firms ask for it as a way to get insight into your quantitative ability. Not a great benchmark but that's what they're doing. Some firms go as far as asking for only your math score on the SAT.
Have you taken/done well in any quant-heavy classes at school? If so, might be work calling out specific achievements in those to balance the low SAT score. In an interview you can easily explain away the low score but having something else on the resume could help get your foot in the door.
just a thought, but if you have time you could take the GMAT, murder it, then put that score above your SAT score
Well based on your theory of past does not equal future then what's the point of putting your school, gpa, etc.? They have to have something to base their decisions off of, and SAT is a good thing for that. While some schools, majors, etc. are harder than others, the SAT is standard. This makes it easier to compare candidates.
My school doesn't really offer any heavy quant related courses but I am on a top investment team where we focus on both delivering quality quantitative and qualitative analysis related to equity investments. And yeah, totally fair point on being able to easily explain it in an interview but like you said, getting the interview is the first step.
Regarding GMAT, i'm an incoming senior finance major so that would be out of the question for now. I do plan on taking either that or the LSAT these two upcoming semesters.
@very.chipper - yeah man, fair point. My argument is more towards why look at something that helped get people in college now that we are looking for full time jobs? I'm a first generation college student so I didn't know the importance of scoring high - I literally thought it was a gauge to get into college and THAT was it. But I'm not going to let that be the reason why I don't get an interview at Lazard though - what's done is done. I just wish they didn't ask that and just evaluate base on college credentials
I'm not saying they're right in it, I was just saying that's what their reasoning is. I'm in the same boat as you; I did not even take the SAT. I took the ACT once, and was told my score was "good enough so don't take it again." Hasn't come up for me as an issue yet, though, thankfully.
You and every other applicant look more or less the same from a distance. Asking for SATs etc is about getting more datapoints we can use to filter a stack of 200 resumes down to the 8 people we want to interview.
If someone had taken the GMAT since then, does that take precedence? Or do you stick with the SAT since pretty much everyone has taken it.
This.
All the people talking about what an SAT score means are wrong. Banks ask for SAT scores the same reason they ask for all these other silly data points: there are too many applicants and not enough spots.
I'm pretty surprised they would ask for an SAT score. In the past I've had to take IQ tests for companies; kind of weird, but makes much more sense than an SAT score. Whether it's SAT, GMAT, or GPA, it's just part of getting past the HR recruiting process. After that, no one really cares about any of it.
Thanks to everyone who answered - good to look at this from another perspective.
I'm not sure if SAT is just part of getting past the HR recruiting process. I reached out to the recruiter I've been in contact with for a while now and she said to just pass along my resume (easy-done), however, the two VPs I just made contact with who have more say in pushing people through for interviews both requested for SAT (WTF).
At this point, I'm not sure how I should even address the low score to the two VPs (have not sent the resume yet). 1630 is not pleasing to look at and I might not recover from that even if I have two relevant IB experience at boutiques.
Any advice on how I should construct the email other than "attached below is my resume" and hope it will go through?
Honestly I would explain the situation in the email and try to give some examples of why the SAT might not be the best metric to judge your quant. reasoning skills.
They almost always asked for it in buyside interviews. Nearly 10 years after I took it..
The SAT was also used in SA interviews. I had a perfect Math Score, but a 680 on reading. It became a focus on my quant vs qual skills. Good to have a story of improving (if you there's a large diff between your math and reading)
Hmm this is unfortunate.
Anyway, I have sent the recruiters my resume already indicating I'm very interested in full time recruiting with them. Would it be wise if I should ignore the VPs all together and move on to different contacts? I have not spoken to these VPs - it sounded like they don't have time to talk so they just wanted my credentials to pass along to the recruiter if they see fit or something. I'm thinking that even if I have a convincing story of why my SAT is so low (family is frugal - I didn't want to spend money where I didn't need to since my parents have sacrificed so much for me to get here - first gen college), they would just tell the recruiter to ding me. Am I overthinking this?
Can't hurt you to address it with them, and if you ignore these guys they will remember it. As long as you don't botch it when you address the issue, then you should be fine. The best way to address these things is to make them a nonissue and address them in passing. Example: Here is my sat score it is average to above-average (or say "above-average" only if that is true), I am pretty proud of it considering my parent's financial constraints hindered me from pursuing any preparation for it..
[If you're like me, I took the test when no one was counting the writing section so I totally blew that off. (mine without it wasn't too great anyways) So, maybe you can discount it that way as well and address only verbal and math if you did pretty well on those]
Don't ignore them, but it is good to work on a story for them if you feel your score is subpar. I'm still surprised many buyside firms would still ask for SAT scores (other than maybe HFT). How did you get a 1630 anyway? Isn't the SAT out of 1600? Did they change the test?
It's out of 2400 now.
A good SAT score means the candidate was able to hunker down and put in some solid diligence on learning/memorizing new vocabulary, doing practice tests, and demonstrating high performance under time pressure at the age of 17. It also gives off the sense that the candidate was thinking about the future and striving for success. A mediocre SAT score can mean anything, but certainly not any of the things that a good SAT score means. The best a mediocre SAT score means is that the candidate is a late bloomer -- which is a pretty neutral signal at best. Taking the ACT instead of the SAT is overall neutral as well, with a good ACT score being construed as just a rung below a good SAT score. Many in the ibanking industry come from top universities and had top SAT scores -- SAT studying is an effort nobody really forgets.
It's just another data point to differentiate candidates. I do find that SAT is a better indicator of raw intelligence than GPA.
If you can "hunker down" and study for an SAT then it doesn't measure raw intelligence; neither would a GPA. The closest thing you could use would be an IQ test. I dont see how an SAT score would be something that gives much insight into a candidate, but some companies just have different requirements.
Intelligence and diligence go hand in hand. If you're intelligent, already have good quantitative abilities, and can infer meaning from passages, then you're likely to need to put in less time for studying. If you're not as bright, you'll need more time. So a good SAT score means more intelligent (or knowledgeable) and/or capable of hard work. I liken the SAT as a precursor to the CFA -- a fair bit of it is just about discipline and being methodical in planning.
Not disagreeing, but, for the sake of argument, even if it is the way you have described it, then a stupid person should be able to study for X amount of time to equal the intelligent person's score.
I agree in general with that statement, I think the average person can score above 1800 on the SAT if they put in the time. Of course if you're really behind, reading at a middle school level, doing math at the middle school level, and still confusing "they're" and "their" in high school, I don't think any amount of time will pull the SAT score up to the Ivy League level. Even students at highly competitive high schools with high GPAs have to put in 2-3 months of studying and practice -- I think I memorized/reviewed more than 1000 words and did at least 10 practice tests in 3 months; it was about putting in a good 30 minutes a day for vocab, 30 minutes for practice problems and a good 3.5-7 hours each weekend for full practice test(s). For those who are much further behind, there is more imperative to start planning at the end of sophomore year to grind it out slowly. Everybody has different opinions, and I agree that the SAT is largely irrelevant to actual worldly knowledge and learning 1000 outdated vocab words (only to be mostly forgotten) is a bit of a waste of time. But at the end of the day, it's about process and that's why the SAT is valuable to me and to the many employers who did go through that process and desire candidates who achieved likewise.
On the one hand, I agree with you in that the most intelligent people tend to do the best on the SAT. However, at least where I am from, all of the preparation you have described is not a common practice. Most people just take it without preparing and take whatever score they get. This happens because in my state only 1100 of 1600 (ignoring writing because it wasn't required when I took it) is needed to get a scholarship to in-state public schools. (Pretty much half-tuition for everyone, bump up for STEM majors) Realistically, that is also the number you need to get into most of the schools--assuming you have a decent GPA. So, there is no incentive for most kids to prep unless you have always had a GPA good enough to get you into the ivy-level, and you actually want to pursue that instead of doing a very cheap degree here.
So, in that way some people that might be smart enough to make 1300-1500 (of 1600), with preparation, don't because they don't have the incentive to prepare. So, it may be misleading for that reason to use the SAT as a measuring stick.
On the other hand, plenty of people still make 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600 (again out of 1600) around here. When you consider what I said about preparation, it is obvious that anyone making those scores is very smart.
Good god I literally just laughed out loud while reading this.....I cannot imagine studying this much (or at all, really) for the SAT. I guess I was also the kid who didn't do any work and relied on acing the tests to pass my classes
Edit: @gamecockfan" I'm glad to hear that I am not the only one who didn't prep or anything. I do have friends who did, but tbh I don't know how much time they put in....but that is interesting that you just had to get 1100 to get state money. Does that mean that pretty much all the kids at usc, clemson, cofc are getting money?
Harum excepturi repellat recusandae id blanditiis recusandae. Ullam est minima iste. Beatae consectetur incidunt odit laborum. Laudantium voluptatem esse eos est consequatur delectus. Laboriosam vel natus delectus molestiae ut voluptatem perferendis.
Accusantium eveniet maiores et repellat sunt quos totam. Quia dicta quaerat magnam voluptas.
Qui officia debitis dolores nulla sit omnis ut. Aspernatur quisquam voluptas est aliquid. Est voluptates id cum pariatur adipisci. Quo id totam velit dignissimos excepturi iure. Ut quos aut ipsum labore libero. Ipsam odit perferendis optio non quis. Eum suscipit quas suscipit sed. Deleniti totam eveniet voluptatem.
Eius a est atque aut esse illo illo veniam. Dolores qui possimus neque dicta perferendis omnis occaecati totam. Quo id provident minima nihil nisi. Architecto sit eligendi vero laboriosam quod voluptatibus dolorem. Qui magnam minus corrupti modi corporis est.
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...
Nihil autem nisi impedit fuga tempore exercitationem in. Fuga quisquam facilis voluptates ut. Commodi porro molestiae earum ad veritatis. Earum nihil ducimus aut velit provident sed soluta.
Vero omnis atque sunt illo minima. Excepturi eaque qui et. Omnis ratione eius aliquid labore quas aperiam ut sint.
Ullam ducimus eveniet reprehenderit laborum adipisci atque. Sit est voluptas aliquam libero enim non animi. Vitae ea quis est tempore enim qui.
Pariatur ipsum dignissimos voluptas quas sit est. Laboriosam vitae qui natus sed. Laudantium similique aspernatur voluptates quia deleniti. Laudantium enim possimus molestias ipsa.
Ad ut ut beatae consequatur ducimus animi dignissimos. Vero sed soluta sit est. Quia nisi in aut illum velit quis officiis. Voluptas necessitatibus amet pariatur. Maiores harum deleniti qui. Dolor vero sapiente itaque vitae voluptatem tempore.
Sint quasi neque aut expedita quo cupiditate provident. Perspiciatis reprehenderit non accusantium sapiente aut. Voluptatem nesciunt voluptas qui dolores provident iure.
Dolores asperiores quaerat est accusamus aliquam. Rerum aspernatur libero rem perspiciatis voluptas. Blanditiis rem architecto iusto fugiat expedita enim. Minus optio numquam ut voluptatem. Qui nisi est alias aut.
Explicabo dolore quo ad nesciunt. Ducimus iste ut minima in soluta et. Cum sunt officia eos qui ut maxime.
Eos magni voluptas sed magni laborum consequatur. Iure officia facere impedit nemo. Impedit voluptates alias et.
Temporibus eveniet odio qui ut quaerat voluptatem optio. Accusamus atque ratione incidunt eum et. Sequi amet nobis sequi voluptate qui enim.
Ab ullam quia enim ad. Quisquam animi quos quia est officia odio. Accusamus aspernatur distinctio ea excepturi dolorum ratione. Optio quaerat corporis doloribus molestiae perspiciatis odio et. Placeat error id unde enim excepturi hic. Tenetur reiciendis aperiam voluptatum dolores nobis ut.
Et ut dolorem quasi. Minima veniam recusandae alias et vel accusamus.