IQ and Consulting?

I'm a rising junior BBA at Ross. Everyone always discusses the value of "raw intelligence", "analytical skills" and whatnot when talking about getting offers for consulting. I happen to be a card-carrying member of MENSA, or the organization for people in the 98th percentile of so-called "intelligence" according to their silly exam.

Should I list that on my resume/mention it in interviews or would I just sound brazen and arrogant prick? Or is that what I'm supposed to go for?

 

I stopped paying my Mensa dues... I guess it could help for networking (if people put their job in the Mensa dbase) but overall... most of the people in consulting or high finance could probably pull off a Mensa membership... its not like its Triple 9 Society or anything lol

looking for that pick-me-up to power through an all-nighter?
 

I would not put it on there.

When I think of someone who is a Mensa member (I'm not saying this is you), I think of someone who is so bad at everything else (eg sports, socializing) aside from an IQ test that he joins a self-congratulatory organization to compensate. It betrays a lack of confidence in oneself.

 

I worked at a MBB firm and did not put it on my cv (and let my membership expire long time ago anyway).

One of the principals was a member of the Mensa Linkedin group. To me, it has too much of a DonaldTrump "step up" feel to it (see

).

As others have said, and for the sake of using a consulting term, there's probably a lot of adverse selection regarding Mensa member applications too.

 

Mensa admission is rather easy, no?

http://www.mensafoundation.org/Content/AML/NavigationMenu/Join/SubmitTe…

LSAT: 95 percentile SAT: from 9/30/74 to 1/31/94 1250 (!!!!!) (I know you kids werent around back then... but let me assure you, that was not impressive).

95th percentile on the LSAT is also rather easy. The standards seem low.

I mean, my ENTIRE law school class qualifies... in fact, the entire student bodies of Harvard Law school Yale law school, Stanford law school, Columbia law school, NYU law school, Chicago law school all qualify and I would imagine that every MBB consultant does as well.

I guess my point is: no one will be impressed and putting it on your resume will look bad.

 

I think it's just a question of supply and demand. Consulting firms offer very few internship slots in general. I'm sure there are loads of people with a 3.0-3.3 GPA who could perform the necessary tasks for consulting perfectly fine but what incentive does a consulting firm have to even give those applicants a second look if they can easily fill up their 5 internship slots with people who have a 3.9+ GPA? If consulting is what you want to do, give it another time during full-time recruiting, when much more slots are available and people with "lower" GPAs also have a chance if their resume is strong.

Btw, neither banking nor consulting are fields where only people with great intelligence could ever flourish; they're just hot fields that many people want to get into, which is why the requirements are high, not because a person with a 3.0 GPA could not do the work. I am also under the impression that consulting has a better reputation thank banking these days, leading to a higher amount of applicants and even higher GPA requirements, but I am a couple years removed from my undergraduate days so take that opinion with a grain of salt.

 

How could you possibly know that your skillset is more suited to consulting? Conversations with consultants don't give you even a solid idea of what they do. Skills you listed -- relationship building, sales, powerpoint, team building, and case studies, are all skills used in IBD as well. Even as an analyst, consultants might do a bit more strategic and cerebral work that isn't limited to being a monkey for models, pitch books, etc. as in IBD. For that type of work, they'd want candidates who have high GPAs - not a perfect measurement of intelligence but a measure of ability to succeed in a given environment.

 

I have two general thoughts on the topic.

GPA doesn’t equal intelligence, and this is especially true in undergrad. I think it’s more of a representation of maturity, work ethic, and even ability to memorize. Of course, ceteris paribus, someone who a higher GPA is more likely to have higher intelligence, but there are too many exceptions to that logic that I think it’s an incorrect assumption to believe they are correlated. So to that regard, even if people have different GPAs coming out of their bachelor programs, I would not make judgment on their intelligence.

To the second part, about intelligence, there is more or less a cap to where intelligence matters and where luck, hard work, and EQ comes in to play. I remember reading a study about the University of Michigan law school court cases around their affirmative action admission policies. In short, they were being sued because most of their URM admits had significantly lower GPAs and LSAT scores. However, this study I read showed that GPAs, graduation rates, bar admission rates, and salaries (both short and medium term) were not statistically different between the URMs and the total class. That is, they may not have been intelligent enough on paper compared to some white students, but they were ‘smart enough’ to match them step-for-step academically and professionally in a T14 program. I believe the same is true for banking, consulting, and any other non-hard science profession. There is a ‘smart enough’ cut-off that matters to do the job. Yet the ability to succeed isn’t measured by who had the higher GPA or GMAT, but rather who has the ability to communicate, manage people and time, and build networks, not the difference between a 750 GMAT and 770 GMAT.

TL;DR: Yes, you don't have to be the smartest person in the room for banking or consulting, but just smart with certain other attributers (communication ability, time management, etc.)

 

You know the best way to describe it? If you're good at case studies, you're probably going to be smart enough for the job. Same skillset is required - assess the situation, generate hypotheses, test them and work through to the conclusion. But then again, to be consistently good enough at case studies to get an offer, you're probably reasonably intelligent with a good business sense. To do well at the job, you need to be hard-working in addition to being reasonably sharp.

So to answer your question, no, you don't need to be a rocket scientist. You do need to be more innovative and more, god, can't believe i'm saying this, outside the box to be successful, especially as compared to the typical ibanker (before anyone gets pissy, not a commentary on ibanker intelligence, but the job requirements).

By the way, nothing against your friend, but if he's at a top firm and he's just cranking on slides, there's a good chance that on some case he gained a reputation as not being analytical enough to be trusted to generate his own conclusions. Most of my coworkers split their time between excel, powerpoint, and brainstorming ideas.

 

but honestly how much of the brainstorming/analytical work do analyst/associates have to think of themselves. isn't that more the duty/responsibility of more senior folks? I understand everyone makes a contribution, but my understanding that "idea/strategy" part of the job is more crucial to the senior folks than junior. Junior people (analyst/associate), with the right attitude, work ethic, and average intelligence will do just as well, or not?

 

"Junior people (analyst/associate), with the right attitude, work ethic, and average intelligence will do just as well, or not?"

Average intelligence means so many things, this is an impossible question to answer. Maybe I can give some scenarios?

You're building some sort of revenue model in Excel. You know what you need to do, but you don't know the Excel formula you need to use to do it. Good - You figure it out on your own, or you ask someone working next to you for help. They show you a quick example, and you figure the rest out. Bad - You need someone to sit down and spend 15 minutes basically doing it for you.

You just get on a case that's already in progress, and your principal is explaining the client's business model. Good - You pick things up very quickly, ask intelligent questions ("Any thoughts about bringing media product X to the iPad?") Bad - You have trouble following the principal's explanation - she has to explain things multiple times.

You've impressed your manager, so you get invited to a meeting with one of the executives from the client team. Good - You make a meaningful contribution Okay - You sit there and take notes Bad - You ask a moronic question

Maybe this is all obvious, but there are certainly times every day when being more intelligent/thoughtful/sharp/quick/creative can pay dividends. You probably won't get fired for not seizing these opportunities, but you also won't be top of your class/great reviews + recommendations/etc.

EDIT: I should add that M/B/B tend to really value intelligence. Getting a reputation for being really "sharp" (probably the way I heard it described most often) can be really beneficial.

 
ringtailedlemur:
"Junior people (analyst/associate), with the right attitude, work ethic, and average intelligence will do just as well, or not?"

Average intelligence means so many things, this is an impossible question to answer. Maybe I can give some scenarios?

You're building some sort of revenue model in Excel. You know what you need to do, but you don't know the Excel formula you need to use to do it. Good - You figure it out on your own, or you ask someone working next to you for help. They show you a quick example, and you figure the rest out. Bad - You need someone to sit down and spend 15 minutes basically doing it for you.

You just get on a case that's already in progress, and your principal is explaining the client's business model. Good - You pick things up very quickly, ask intelligent questions ("Any thoughts about bringing media product X to the iPad?") Bad - You have trouble following the principal's explanation - she has to explain things multiple times.

You've impressed your manager, so you get invited to a meeting with one of the executives from the client team. Good - You make a meaningful contribution Okay - You sit there and take notes Bad - You ask a moronic question

Maybe this is all obvious, but there are certainly times every day when being more intelligent/thoughtful/sharp/quick/creative can pay dividends. You probably won't get fired for not seizing these opportunities, but you also won't be top of your class/great reviews + recommendations/etc.

EDIT: I should add that M/B/B tend to really value intelligence. Getting a reputation for being really "sharp" (probably the way I heard it described most often) can be really beneficial.

That adds a lot of clarity. However, its seems like many of the instances you mentioned are things that you can "learn on the job". After a few engagements, as well as whatever training they provide, isn't there a general learning curve when it comes to these excel models, and etiquette?? Naturally certain people will shine far brighter than others, like in any job. ...However I think the misconception of strategy consulting is that people think it is rocket science (b/c of the selectivity and interview process), and the people who work at M/b/b think of these out of this world strategies at every engagement, and that every consulting gig is like a whole new "everest" they conquer.....but in reality its simply not. I get the feeling that while the engagements may change, the industries/companies change, the "technical" work gets rather repetitive. people at the lower levels simply don't play such a dramatic role in the brainstorming/strategy part of it, more so the higher level folks, hence the "up or out" policy, because only very few who are hired are meant to be partners/engagement managers.

...maybe ibankers and consultants aren't all that different after all. good pay high profile clients work that helps to landscape the economy lots of bitch work, excel, powerpoint, pitchbooks, tomato tomata

...maybe they attract a different culture of people though. and of course different hours

 
ringtailedlemur:

You just get on a case that's already in progress, and your principal is explaining the client's business model. Good - You pick things up very quickly, ask intelligent questions ("Any thoughts about bringing media product X to the iPad?") Bad - You have trouble following the principal's explanation - she has to explain things multiple times.

LMAO. Bringing a product to the iPad. What type of moron client would pay for such a worthless project?

Anyway..... NO, you do not need to be intelligent to do this job. Most of the people here are those with inflated GPA's from fuzzy majors. At top schools, there are people who can finish with a 4.0 in Econ who would have to kill themselves just to pull a B in a techie course. I was Econ/CS double, and it's very obvious that I'm way above almost everybody in terms of analytical ability.

Look, as an analyst you all you really have to do is be able to speak up during meetings. You fly around pretending to be a big shot then go and fix up a stupid presentation until you get the right number of chevrons per slide. The hardest part of the job is getting into the door because the work is borderline retarded. This is why there's such a nice revolving door between MBB and MBA programs: it's the same bullshit and the same bullshitters. I honestly cannot imagine why anybody would want to work here post MBA other than being allured by the prestige of something mysterious. Few people will admit this because they come to realize that the MBB (and especially the M) name is really all they have going for them.

 

not at all, consulting and banking are highly ironic professions. bust ur ass at an ivy just to make powerpoint decks and format shit in powerpoint and excel all day.

people with real brilliance do entrepreneurship.

========================================= We are excited to formally extend to you an offer to join Bank of Ameria
 

@Shirley - You're right in a sense - I respect a successful entrepreneur far more than the top M/B/B analyst.

At the same time, we're not all cut out to be entrepreneurs (especially right out of undergrad), and that kind of risk profile just isn't appealing. If you're a good consulting analyst, you ARE adding value to your client, and you're getting a fair compensation for that. That experience opens many doors, including potential partners for a more entrepreneurial type of job.

 
ringtailedlemur:
If you're a good consulting analyst, you ARE adding value to your client, and you're getting a fair compensation for that.

Have I got this wrong, or do consultants/ibankers tend to get hired by big, public firms, with scattered shareholders who only speculate/don't really care. The CEOs of those companies hire overpaid proffesionals to blur responsibility for making decisions/they enjoy the company of bright young people/they love the prestige of doing a high profile transaction and being on the front page of WSJ. And they dont really care about the outsized fees - its not their money after all.

Please correct me if Im misjudging the situation, and entrepreneurs/single owners/family businesses hire MBB consultants just as eagerly as F500 companies.

 

I hope some folks with more experience than me chime in.

The only data point I can really give you is that when I was an intern, my case was for a small media company (privately owned). We were developing a broad turnaround strategy - both cost cutting and growth strategy - and making a lot of decisions that the client either wouldn't have been able to make, or would have taken many times longer to make.

 

I think you're underestimating the broad nature of the types of work a consulting company can do. Every case is going to be very different at a higher level, but also at a lower level - in terms of the types of graphs you're making, data you're crunching, etc.

An example - you might start on a case where you're restructuring the global sales department for a Fortune 500 company. Your tasks might include figuring out the company's sales data (in whatever weird format they store it in), developing a formula to rank the sales folk (probably working closely with manager/partner here - but getting to put in your own ideas), and then really keeping a close tally of the headcount/revenue + cost model/etc as decisions get made about who gets cut and who stays. You might also get involved with a strategy component - how to incentivize the sales team, and that might involve doing research into what other companies have done using an internal knowledgebase.

Do you see how this would be different in many ways from working with a big pharma company to decide which potential new drug to invest in? Which is different from advising the NYTimes on how to price their iPad app, which is different from a supply chain analysis for a big manufacturing company?

The skills you'll use will be the same, but there's a lot of domain knowledge you have to pick up in each case. I think intelligence helps a lot in getting up to speed (i.e. useful to your team) quickly.

We might not even be disagreeing - I certainly wouldn't call consulting rocket science (it's much more like "applied common sense") and I don't think analysts dream up radical world-changing strategies on a regular basis. But I think that you're characterizing the job as a bit more "plug + chug" than it actually is.

 

You don't need to be brilliant to do it, but you need to be very smart to get it.

Then again, as someone said, being fucking sharp incrementally improves your work.

 

Dude, then don't do MBB. And don't work for a bank because the work is even more retarded. If you think you're hot, go and work for Google.

@TheRapist: may I ask where you work? :)

 
GoodBread:
I'm not suggesting M&A is a better "value add" or whatever you want to call it. However, consulting is exclusively a service industry while the buyside can legitimately claim to create value, as can certain sell-side functions like DCM.

I'd rather not introduce "value" at all. It ends up being a tiresome debate about the relative importance of value creation vs. value realisation, when in reality it's a meaningless distinction since value is value regardless of how it's achieved.

 

The question 'do you need to be brilliant to work in strategy consulting?' is two edged. It's not really a well-defined question. There are two sides to this.

i) Yes, you need to be considerably smarter than the average person to get into the door. They really only hire the top of the class from top programs usually, but; ii) No, the work itself doesn't take such analytical power to actually carry it out in a reasonable manner

MBB are highly overpowered in their intellectual capacity for the work they provide. This is done to cover when things actually do get tough and serious, which may happen. People know that MBB generally will not fuck up, and that the solution will be the best they can get out there. The solution itself might be marginally better, or marginally faster produced, but you can be sure that it's the best you could get.

If you go for other firms you might get a fucked up solution, things turn to shit, and you'd have to explain why you hired them. If this happens for MBB, people can't blame you. That's why they hire the smartest, to be able to function as a safety net for senior executives. Not because the work is so damn hard. So yes, you need to be quite good to get into the door, once you're in, you can function/get-by with half a brain. It makes your life easier to be sharp though, as mentioned before.

 

Delectus reprehenderit ab corporis. Ut quas voluptatem sint omnis et vel. Aliquid est magni natus suscipit est. Ullam natus nesciunt dolorem nostrum.

 

Aut sed fuga corrupti vitae repellendus et. Eum sint eius et delectus maiores a debitis deleniti. Omnis voluptatibus officia nobis ut recusandae et. Aut quos quasi cum. Laborum quia labore rem aut est. Eligendi deleniti est dolores. Hic ea vitae recusandae.

Consequuntur distinctio sed vero quidem porro tempore. Ex eaque iure repellendus neque quidem. Dolorem eligendi possimus qui assumenda. Autem ullam quasi et. Dolor ut consequatur nisi cupiditate. Illum voluptas omnis repellendus ad ipsam. Sit alias provident commodi ullam.

Aliquid quos fugiat aut. Blanditiis dolores est velit qui quidem dicta. Consequatur rerum necessitatibus deserunt minus autem voluptatem tempora. Ut quis voluptas aut vel eum et.

 
Best Response

Autem sunt incidunt id et vero molestiae possimus voluptatem. Vero numquam aut fugiat veritatis dolorem vitae. Dolor ex eligendi qui voluptas eligendi autem aliquam iusto. Eum libero culpa dolor suscipit quia qui. Alias possimus exercitationem rem assumenda aliquam sit magnam quis. Atque aspernatur delectus aut alias. Vel quas deleniti delectus.

Dolorem aspernatur nemo perspiciatis voluptatibus facilis. Velit eos qui a soluta. Corporis ipsum nisi quaerat sunt nesciunt.

Eveniet et necessitatibus est quibusdam minus quia. Enim ipsam eligendi iste ex. Labore odit consectetur et magnam ea esse necessitatibus est. Repudiandae illum nostrum distinctio ducimus. Iste hic dolore voluptas. Quis illum unde eum quis reiciendis sunt ea ex. Dolores aliquam soluta laborum in voluptatem enim.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Consulting

  • Bain & Company 99.4%
  • McKinsey and Co 98.9%
  • Boston Consulting Group (BCG) 98.3%
  • Oliver Wyman 97.7%
  • LEK Consulting 97.2%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Consulting

  • Bain & Company 99.4%
  • Cornerstone Research 98.9%
  • Boston Consulting Group (BCG) 98.3%
  • McKinsey and Co 97.7%
  • Oliver Wyman 97.2%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Consulting

  • Bain & Company 99.4%
  • McKinsey and Co 98.9%
  • Boston Consulting Group (BCG) 98.3%
  • Oliver Wyman 97.7%
  • LEK Consulting 97.2%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Consulting

  • Partner (4) $368
  • Principal (25) $277
  • Director/MD (55) $270
  • Vice President (47) $246
  • Engagement Manager (99) $225
  • Manager (152) $170
  • 2nd Year Associate (158) $140
  • 3rd+ Year Associate (108) $130
  • Senior Consultant (329) $130
  • Consultant (586) $119
  • 1st Year Associate (538) $119
  • NA (15) $119
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (145) $115
  • Engineer (6) $114
  • 2nd Year Analyst (342) $102
  • Associate Consultant (166) $98
  • 1st Year Analyst (1046) $87
  • Intern/Summer Associate (188) $84
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (547) $67
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”