The conventional wisdom on WSO for non-target seems to be: Network hard to get an interview and then prepare well and rock the interview and even if you come from a non-target, you have a fighting chance if you PERFORM there.
Is this really true? I mean can someone from a lower school/GPA get a job over a candidate who is from a better school/GPA if they perform better on the interview?
| +102 | At what point should you give up? | 54 | 1m | |
| +77 | Shafted for SA 2025 Recruitment. Next steps? | 31 | 1d | |
| +37 | I am lost on the next step - Need Advice | 8 | 1d | |
| +34 | Best Questions to Ask on a Coffee Chat? | 11 | 4d | |
| +33 | Recruiting while unemployed | 14 | 25m | |
| +29 | Tips for: LSE MSc Finance-->IBD SA. Should I go for a third internship in M&A?? | 7 | 4d | |
| +25 | Need Advice: MIT Finance or CMU CS | 6 | 5d | |
| +24 | Research Offers Input | 3 | 4d | |
| +23 | To late for me? | 12 | 3d | |
| +22 | SF vs NY IB Stint | 10 | 5h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
I think it's quite prevalent with everything on WSO and M&I that there is never one rigid formula/structure for breaking in. I think many on here can agree with that. Finding your own formula and making it work, that's the hard part.
agree with above...sometimes it does, sometimes it doesnt. You have to figure out how to play your story, why you want to be there, etc and make your interview understand why you are much better than the guy sitting next to you.
There was an entire thread on this already.
Do you remember the thread's name or do you have the link?
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/is-it-true-that-once-at-interview…
well that took 30 seconds
Thanks.
The answer I got is NO, getting to an interview is not an equalizer.
Of course, but it's true to different extents depending on which group, which division, and which interviewer.
In Analytics (the quants and quant developers), I was up against programmers from Harvard with X, Y, and Z honors programs and recognitions. They spent so much time collecting those accolades that they had no time to learn how to program. Guess who got the offer?
In IBD, it's the other end of the spectrum, but you can still beat kids out. Especially from a public ivy. Not all CEOs and execs come from the blue-blooded white shoe culture of Wall Street and it's always good to bring in smart kids with fresh ideas.
Trading is just a touch less anti-elitist than the quant world, and research falls about halfway between banking and trading.
a hot girl?
I think the impact you can make in an interview as a non-target is much greater than that of a target. People that come from a target school are expected to know their stuff and do well in an interview for some reason, but if you come in from a non-target and blow them away it seems to stick in their mind much more.
You know what, I actually feel stupid for asking this question. Of course people are not going to look at you in level terms if you are from a shitty private college in NJ going up against Princeton kids.
The point I was really trying to make is that going to a flagship state university is much better than going to a small private or a small state college. If you attended University of Florida for example, people at least have heard of it, as opposed to some small college in Florida that you and I have never heard of.
Don't compete where you won't win. Course you won't get the job over a Princeton kid who wants it just as bad. Don't go for GS or any place where those guys are also dying to get the job. You have to go for the jobs that are not "the best of the best", where your ambition and determination will come through where you're still competing with kids from the ivies, but who may not want it as bad as you do, and you'll have a fighting chance.
Quant work and open outcry trading are the last two bastions of competence-based meritocracy. Sadly, open outcry is going away.
And one more thing, I forgot to ask/say. I think to classify schools as strictly target and non-target is stupid. I mean there are the top tier targets, and then the targets and semi-targets. I don't really care about that since I don't go to one.
But among what are labeled as non-targets here, it is obviously better if you go to let's say Rutgers or SUNY Binghamton (large student and alumni body, some sort of name recognition) compared to let's say small colleges in NJ/NY like Drew University or Ithaca College. Wouldn't you agree with that Illini? I mean going to UIUC is much better than going to some unknown private college in Indiana.
One thing that the WSO crowd underestimates is the value of going to top Liberal Arts Colleges. And I'm not just talking about Williams and Amherst here. I'm talking about all top Liberal Arts Colleges. They have loyal alumni in great places. Someone I personally know landed a Citi FT IBD from Bowdoin. And I've heard great things about them from other people as well.
I am desperately trying to transfer to a top Liberal Arts College. I know I am not getting anywhere in life from my small private school that no one knows. No way I am doing an ordinary 9-5 job. I really would want something more challenging.
If Wall Street doesn't want you (and they may not be able to afford you by the time you graduate), LaSalle Street will be thrilled to hire you. The Chicago prop shops haven't even heard of Bowdoin and coming from the school of hard knocks generally adds to your candidacy at many of these firms if you're otherwise a bright and driven individual. Oh, and a large number of Chicagoans will assume Rutgers is a private school and NYU is a public school.
Just promise me that when you make your third million at 28 and need a financial advisor, it will be somebody who drives a rusty honda and charges 75 basis points instead of the usual 100.
I am assuming onsite interview, and the candidate has already gone through on-campus interview.
As someone who has sat through these recruiting sessions, no it's not really equal. But it matters a lot less than people think. That a candidate has already gone through 2-3 rounds prior to onsite interview means they have been moderately screened. But a top notch school and/or major will still raise some eyebrows; but if they sucked at the interview or unqualified, they'll still be dinged. But a lower tier school is fine as well. It's just if all things equal, there might be slight advantage to the higher tiered school (but not all that much).
It depends who makes the final decisions in the hiring process. If the people you interview with are the ones that make the decisions then you can be on a more "equal" playing field with the more prestigious university kids/higher GPAs. If the interviewers simply pass on their opinions of you to someone else to make the decision then it is much more difficult to be considered an "equal" during the interview.
@IP: Yes, I should stop using the word desperate and stop feeling that way. But at the end of my 3 semesters here at my small private school, I have a 4.0/4.0 with a heavy course load. So I will go ahead and apply to 3-4 top Liberal Arts Colleges. I think my desire to go to a top LAC borders on Brady4MVP's desperation to go to HBS. At this point I would say no to Yale to go to Colby. Just kidding! but I am only going to apply to top LACs. Now, as we have discussed before, I am never going to be a part of the lacrosse playing crowd. But like you told me,I have a few things going for me as well.
You'll be disappointed to know that I'm not majoring in Econ and Math, just Econ. But I want get into Sales and not trading, and I think Econ will suffice.
I promise I won't forget. I will try to get that down to 70 for me.
Getting an interview gives you an equal opportunity to sell yourself. You get the same amount of time as the Harvard guy to explain why you are best suited for the job. From that perspective, you do have an equal opportunity.
That doesn't mean that you won't be facing biases and skepticism from the interviewer. You just need to know how to sell better than the next guy.
People in finance often look down at corporate sales roles (not S&T), but there is a sales component to every job and most interactions in life.
All people are equal during the interview, but some people are more equal than others.
They way I've always looked at it is if you are at the Superday (or last round) then you are employable. They are comfortable with employing anyone who makes it this far but since they only have a limited amount of positions they need to cut through it all to find the most likely to succeed in the company.
Therefore, there is obviously weight assigned to, "Well ok, this kid has a 3.9 from Harvard. I graduated from X school with a 3.6 and so if I can cut it here, he probably can too" and vice versa, "This kid has a 3.5 from a non-target and I doubt that school is any harder than my alma mater, this kid has more to prove to me".
So yes, everyone has an equal chance of landing the position. However, some people have more to prove during the 30 minute interview than others.
I had this experience as a kid from a non-target school from mid-west, which is more or less unknown school in the NE. Even though I excelled the interview rounds (which btw I wouldnt even get unless I had something like guaranteed placement) and was told face-to-face by one MD of one BBs that the bank will hire me, but they didn't. The same MD called me personally to explain. Believe it or not, its exactly because of my non-reputable school. if you look at it objectively, it makes sense. The clients from these banks pay a lot of money to receive expertise and thus, they want people from the elite schools. However, I do encourage to keep striving for what you want!
Of course. And he's being too modest by shooting for Bowdoin. Any school is arguably a target for this kid.
So why does he write "desperate"?
Schools and employers want to see kids who are cool, calm, and collected. Like the water in Walden Pond. We've both met James and while it's not necessarily a weakness for an S&T interview, he risks coming off as TOO energetic and a little TOO superlative a typical grad school interview or application. The last word you want to use on a graduate school application is desperate, especially when that doesn't describe your situation at all.
Short of Cornell, Amherst, and UPenn- and maybe even including those schools, the admission is James' to lose. Beyond that, everything is worth an app.
I dont see why people beat themselves up over this shit
These jobs are becoming slimmer n slimmer
A tosser from Harvard vs. a normal guy from a shit school. I am gonna go with the tosser from Harvard hands down, really looking forward to working with someone that I won't get along with!! Can't even believe this question is even being debated here so extensively. Only difference will be if the person went to the EXACT same school as the person being interviewed. Just like if the guy is from Andorra, and you are from Andorra as well...
the black guy always gets the shaft
Is it true that once at interview level you are all equal? (Originally Posted: 11/01/2011)
Is it true that once at interview level you are all equal?
I.e. it doesnt really matter what you studied, grades, which school you came from, previous internship experiences etc?
Also, does it go the other way - do some firms/hiring managers have a bias against ivy-leaguers and/or those who they suppose to have an "entitlement complex" ?
In my opinion, no, it's just another way to judge you on a personal level. However, the distance between the "top" and "bottom" candidates is much, much less than at the point of the resume drop. But both friends of mine and myself have had interviews that went great, literally made no mistakes on the technical questions and fit in well with the group, but was told that I was not given an offer due to other candidates having an UG finance degree/studying finance while I was majoring in the liberal arts. I highly doubt they did much better than me in the interviewing process, so it was kind of frustrating to know that my great interviews were somewhat all for naught.
I had similar experiences, except I think it was people that had networked with people at the firm that were selected over me after great interviews.
No. I form my initial opinion the minute I get the interview packet from HR. I end up going into most interviews with a "promising" or "meh-whatever" feeling just from the resume. Obviously a great or a bad interview can change that initial opinion for the better or the worse. I do feel that I usually end up sticking with my initial opinion most of the time.
That's douchey. Stop wasting people's time.
The resume also drives the conversation in the interview, so those with "better" resumes usually have better/more interesting interviews.
this is certainly not true....GPA, especially an outstanding one can really get you very far in the process. despite of interviews, they always keep in mind the things presented on the resume and can often use them as deciding factors as they are more concrete...
not at all - many of my interviews the feedback was, listen we've opted to go with an MBA, or we've opted to go with someone that has direct experience in this...(makes you wonder why they interviewed in the first place)
this is for lateral hiring, for ugrad i would say there's Ivy, then everyone else same level...some firms ONLY have analysts from Ivy - if you've managed to squeeze through interview process u automatically have something against you.
GPA/Resume content is just an extra tool in the screening process. I don't think you walk in on an equal level. Wishful thinking there. I don't think it seals your fate, but it certainly will have an affect on perception. An interview is certainly the opportunity to change that perception though.
I think a weaker background is a bit of a handicap when you've got several candidates who do similarly in the interviews, but for S&T, if there's a relatively clear outperformer, it doesn't matter whether he went to BMCC or Stanford.
We claim to be a meritocracy and we do our best to live by that. After the interview invites go out, the only time we care about what school you went to or what your GPA was is when we can't make an easy decision off of the interviews. It is MUCH better to go in with Baruch on your resume and hit a number of grand slams being interviewed by Harvard alumns than to go in as a Harvard 4.0 and be weak on the technical questions.
A MM firm I interviewed with told us right before we departed super-saturday that they were going to plug our stats (GPA, internship, GMAT, SAT, etc.) into a ranking system and that canidates would be ranked from best to worst.
Everyone in the interview process then sat in a room and debated who to hire. So, if you were toward the bottom of that ranking, the only way you were getting hired is if you really impressed someone you interviewed with and they fought for you. Otherwise your out of luck.
Nope, I've had a good amount of interviews and a lot of final rounds and I keep hearing about my lack of finance experience
IMO, it is never equal. People have biases and preferences. At the end of the day, you don't know how anyone is actually going to perform no matter how well they do in the interview, so it's nothing more than a risk / reward proposition. "I think this person will do well" or, "No, I don't feel good about this candidate." That's it. And most people feel good about someone with the "right" major, school, GPA, etc. I actually subscribed to that line of thinking as well (even though it works against me coming from a non-target) until I started doing the hiring. To be sure, there are brilliant people who went to HYP for undergrad and/or got a top 3 MBA and worked at the best firms, etc. But to be honest, some of them are quite poor in actual job performance and would be at a disadvantage relative to a smart, aggressive state school kid. I've seen this first hand having a top MBA work for me, and interviewing several other candidates from the "elite" category (none of which got the job). In fact, there isn't a single Ivy grad in the firm I work for because the PM has a bias against the entitlement complex.
So it's true? There is a non target nirvana...
Answer: Not all interviewers/teams/firms are equal.
I know of people who are attuned by the school/gpa/major of a candidate before he/she walks in. I also know of others who only use that as a filter, and once you get to the interview it's fair game, whether you went to a target or a non-target. But banking is highly risk-averse, so during recruiting people feel a little safer going for the Harvard grad than the BU grad.
Dude..put your thinking cap on. If they ignore all of those factors then what on Earth do they use to evaluate you guys ? Btw, I believe many managers are from Ivies themselves so why do they discriminate against their fellow alumni ?
No. I think this is one of those areas where if your CV is stellar, you want to make sure the guy is someone you can work late nights with and doesn't have any abrasive personality issues. If your CV is on the weaker side but there is a possibly redeeming thing in there, it's your second chance. I think it is a direct continuation of the CV eval.
Targets definitely still have an advantage
This makes me sound like a dick, but when I see a nontarget with a 4.0 in a non-STEM major I automatically knock it down to a 3.5 or so in my head...
To be honest, I haven't seen many liberal arts majors from targets in the resume books. There will be econ guys from Princeton / Harvard but that's about the extent of off-majoring. And the English majors that do make it through are usually doubling or minoring in applied maths / physics or have a plethora of prior experience.
I agree, not all Ivy League people have an entitlement complex, in fact most probably don't. But there are some epic d-bags in finance.
Question on the liberal arts as well -- if you look around, most of the best investors in the world have liberal arts degrees, from Icahn, to Soros, to Einhorn, etc., etc. MBAs are also well represented, but there are definitely more liberal arts at the top than any other background. What's with all the hate? I doubled in CSE and philosophy and I definitely think the latter is a better background for investing.
You pick up culture from high school and perhaps a religious institution that's moderate enough to talk about religious history. But all of that culture is still not as fun as driving around in a rusty honda and having debates about Penn State vs. Illinois football. (Sadly, Illinois isn't having a good season.)
People are never going to be on the same playing field and most investment banks know who they are going to hire before the superday even occurs. Conventionally-speaking, bankers talk / gossip / refer / recommend a lot so recruiting becomes a complex process that rewards the most hardworking / passionate / committed candidates.
Before the superday - based on informational interviews and networking, the superday interviewers will have either: 1.) Been explicitly told who is good and/or which group likes which candidates 2.) Have done informational interviewers with the candidates 3.) Heard rumors of who is a "good fit," meaning smart / sharp / likeable guys and hot girls get significant brownie points while awkward / rude / douchey candidates are significantly downgraded...
The "chosen ones" are typically hired 70-80% of the time and they are pitched soft-ball questions at the superday. Not only will they get lay-up behavioral / technical questions, the demeanor from the interviewers are also different. Unfortunately for the unlucky majority, the interviewer will fuck these interviewees by bombarding them with tougher questions. Nonetheless, every once in awhile David can beat Goliath when one of the "chosen ones" fuck up and/or one of the "non-chosen ones" successfully field every question and simply knock the superday of the park...
Moral of the story - network and do your informational interviews!
Et corrupti eveniet rerum aut. Deleniti necessitatibus dignissimos maiores natus sed. Unde nobis et animi corrupti nihil.
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...
Alias eius ad et ut ut culpa nesciunt quaerat. Officiis aut tenetur non rerum non quia esse. Odio nihil praesentium quasi consequuntur. Aliquam autem ea rem qui minus molestias. Praesentium eveniet quisquam ex. Quibusdam accusantium amet sunt nihil voluptates optio sapiente.
Labore accusamus non doloribus impedit dolores aut asperiores. Voluptates dignissimos dolorum iure et. Provident animi sed velit qui.
Corrupti ut deleniti necessitatibus. Eos dolorum sunt doloribus corrupti dolor animi aliquid aut. Sed earum ut consequatur ut amet odit ratione.