SAT Scores in Interview

Although it doesn't seem common in banking, I have had numerous hedge funds ask me for my SAT score during interviews (apparently this happens with consulting also). I understand they are looking for a measure of intelligence, but those scores are 4-5 years old!

my question is, can they actually verify old SAT scores? I mean, i don't even know how i would go about finding my old scores (i only remember total, not breakdown). Is this just a ridiculous question that you can lie for?

anyone else had this happen?

Do Wall Street Firms Check My SAT Scores?

While it is impossible to say whether or not a particular firm will actually check your SAT scores, most users feel it is not worth it to risk lying. Our users generally recommend leaving it blank on your application if you do not like your scores. Our users shared their thoughts below.

BABanker - Corporate Development Director:
  1. Just about every company will require you to undergo a background check. You will sign a little piece of paper essentially granting the bank permission to any of your information, such as credit history, employment references, education, and also test scores. Whether test scores is something they actually check is another matter.
  2. The SAT is just another means of evaluating someone. It is not the only means, just one. But look at it this way. There are tons of people trying to get banking interviews and jobs. Nice objective criteria (valid or otherwise) make it very easy to throw people out and thus narrow the scope. Are some good people thrown out??? Of course. But the whole target school recruiting does the same thing. It's just the way the game is setup.
  3. I personally wouldn't lie about my scores, because even somewhere down the line it could come back to haunt you. If the scores are bad, just don't put them. If pressed for them, tell them what they are but say something about how they don't reflect your motivation to be a banker now and all that happy BS...just my opinion

User @luke77" shared that some schools put your SAT scores on your final transcript - so you're bound to get caught:

luke77 - Investment Banking Analyst:
At my school our SAT scores are recorded on our final transcripts, and I suspect it's the same at a lot of other schools. I doubt that a bank is going to rescind an offer if it turns out you put down the wrong scores, unless you are off by a lot, but I don't doubt that they can check them.

Read more about lying about SAT scores in another thread - Lying About SAT Scores for Job Application.

Read More About Lying on Your Resume on WSO

Find the Best Jobs on Wall Street

Subscribe to our extensive list of finance jobs! Free one month subscription to the job board if you fill out a WSO Applicant Profile by clicking here. Just send the link of your profile to [email protected] once it's created and get access within 24 hours.

WSO Job Board

 

I was only kidding. I really don't know if they can verify them, but it's pretty sad when people have to lie about their scores.

Then again, I'm a good standardized test taker. Not everyone is.

 

1) just about every company will require you to undergo a background check. You will sign a little piece of paper essentially granting the bank permission to any of your information, such as credit history, employment references, education, and also test scores. Whether test scores is something they actually check is another matter.

2) The SAT is just another means of evaluating someone. It is not the only means, just one. But look at it this way. There are tons of people trying to get banking interviews and jobs. Nice objective criteria (valid or otherwise) make it very easy to throw people out and thus narrow the scope. Are some good people thrown out??? Of course. But the whole target school recruiting does the same thing. It's just the way the game is setup.

3) I personally wouldn't lie about my scores, because even somewhere down the line it could come back to haunt you. If the scores are bad, just don't put them. If pressed for them, tell them what they are but say something about how they don't reflect your motivation to be a banker now and all that happy BS...just my opinion

 

My SAT score was less than stellar. They will recognize someone with talent if they have it (even if one of the screening criteria is screwed).

  • Slams
...
 

I know all about the background check, but I never thought SAT scores were on it... It includes schools, credit records, legal issues, etc...

In any case, I always told the truth about my scores (I was to surprised at the question to bother lying). I just started thinking about the issue afterwards and I couldn't imagine how they could ever check your answer.

 

Usually they get the score from your undergraduate school, assuming you sent them your SAT score. If you went to a university that doesn't require SAT scores (few and far between) then there's really no way to verify because I doubt ETS would be willing to send it to them directly.

 

Citadel asked me this question, and I told them 1600, 800s on 5 SAT IIs. I think the dude thought I was lying though (I WASNT) because he gave me a crook eye and asked me a bunch of follow up questions (how did you prepare, etc) which definitely threw me off because , jeez, I didn't really do anything special.

 

It's too bad that the scores on a test taken three or more years ago are still asked for. Once you have been accepted at a college, that should be the end of SAT scores.

Although one could argue that it provides a better comparison among candidates from different schools than a GPA.

 

Some people pass up Ivys because they get full rides at lesser schools. SATs can prove that you are very smart but may have had to settle for someone that offered you more money.

P.S: 3 years old or not, I still think SATs are a pretty good indicator of intelligence. Do you really think most people change drastically over these 3 years?

CompBanker’s Career Guidance Services: https://www.rossettiadvisors.com/
 
CompBanker:
Some people pass up Ivys because they get full rides at lesser schools. SATs can prove that you are very smart but may have had to settle for someone that offered you more money.

P.S: 3 years old or not, I still think SATs are a pretty good indicator of intelligence. Do you really think most people change drastically over these 3 years?

That's a really good point. A good number of the people from non-target schools who interned at the place I interned at last summer had high SAT scores (>1400) displayed on their resume. I know one of the kids got a full scholarship to the school he attends.

 

probably the 1540 with 3.4; shows raw brain power and decent study habit / work ethic. 3.6 is not materially higher than a 3.4. If you had a 4.0 with your 1200 then the comparison would be somewhat more relevant. Even then, I think the 1540 guy would be looked at more preferably.

If you scored a 1200, my advice would be to keep it off your resume for an HF. Even if you're very smart but a poor test-taker, the recruiter will take the 1200/4.0 to mean you are not as smart as someone with a 1550, but you work like a dog to maintain your GPA. I would keep the 4.0 on there, sound smart in my interview, and try to steer the conversation away from standardized tests scores.

 

plus the 1540/3.4 most likely means that the kid wanted to challenge himself more while in school rather than take the easiest classes possible. If I saw someone with a piss-poor SAT and a great GPA, I know I'd be suspicious of that

 

I got a 1440 (700 M, 740 V). I actually left it on for the few resumes I sent last month, but my advisor actually told me to take it off because it looks "childish." Should I put it back on or would it even matter at all?

 
grandpabuzz:
I got a 1440 (700 M, 740 V). I actually left it on for the few resumes I sent last month, but my advisor actually told me to take it off because it looks "childish." Should I put it back on or would it even matter at all?

maybe in the fantasy world of people working as career counselors, SAT scores are "childish".

In banking (rightly or wrongly) people definitely want to know your scores and they will ask for them if you don't provide it.

Having above 700 in each category shows you having good math and verbal ability. This can be particularly helpful if you don't go to a target school, and you can make your case that you are also smart.

 

it might matter when you look at it sum-of-parts. 1440 is a good score, so if you're notably lacking in a particular area (a pretty low GPA), you might want to show that your marbles are still strong. If every thing else is solid then don't bother with the 1440. Not to nitpick (your scores are v. good), but if you're applying to a top BB/HF they're choosing amongst hordes with 770+ on math. Again, see how your application looks as a whole and see if the 1440 really fortifies your application. Just my $0.02

 

ok can someone please tell me their thoughts..

I have a 3.8 from a non target and on my resume I have the following listed:

Writing- 770 Math - 710 Verbal - 710

I think my math and verbal scores are a bit on the low end but listed them because I felt listing my score in writing will boost my candidacy especially since I'm interviewing for investment research at a top BB and that I'm also a foreign student-

was this a good move or a bad move-? Are my scores sub par compared to other BB interviewees?

 

I think banks like to use SAT as an apple-to-apple comparison for candidates from different schools. I mean, it can be kinda hard to judge some aspects based on GPA, especially if you are looking at candidates from both targets and non-targets.

I was asked to fillout SAT scores on an info sheet during an interview day, so a good score definitely doesn't hurt in anyway.

 

Do people really think that the SAT really measures intelligence? It's supposed to give you a general idea of how well you learned material in HS and to act as a predictor of how well you will do in college NOT and IQ test, which still is not an accurate measure of intelligence. I don't see how a standardized test you took in high school could be used as a fair measure of your intelligence or expected performance.

I would think that if someone got thrown out for a low SAT score they probably didn't have much else going for them.

 

Everyone uses the SAT as a measure of intelligence. Med school administrators say that the SAT is the best predictor of how well someone performs as a doctor. Nearly everyone wants to know it in interviews, from hedge funds to advertising agencies.

Like it or not, the test is relevant and will continue to be relevant for many years to come. Learn to stop complaining and love the SAT. Or at least retake it if you can't get a good job.

 

I would never hire anyone with an SAT score below 1400. I would be much more likely to hire a kid with a 2.5 and a 1500 than someone with a 4.0 and a 1350.

Why hire an average American to do something an outsourced overqualified Indian can do? I'd rather spend my money on intelligence.

 

Are you guys serious? The CR is almost all vocabulary which is almost certain to increase in your college career and NONE of the math is even comparable to that you would be performing in college.

I'm thinking the med school administrators comment is pulled straight from the posters ass. Even if it were true it would probably have more to do with the fact that students who studied and did well in high school/on the sat are more likely to study and do well in college and on the MCAT.

 

My father is a professor at a top 20 med school. When he interviews applicants, he weights the SAT more than the MCAT. Why? You'd have to ask him...

He says the SAT is more indicative of performance than any other factor, including MCAT or GPA. I suppose med schools associate the SAT with intelligence and the MCAT and GPA with work ethic.

 

...I got an 1190....I have a 3.3 gpa....I go to a non target...and I just had a superday at a BB for S&T (waiting on a decision) and am having another superday next thursday at another BB....i guess they didn't get the memo with the SAT score situation...

 

You've got to be kidding me? They ask SAT scores??

What if you did bad on the SATs but did amazing on the ACT? I took the SAT first, didn't do to well. Then I took the ACT and got a 34 out of 36. How should I answer the question when an interviewer asks? Should I not even mention taking the SAT?

 

SAT scores don't measure intelligence; they measure one's preparation for an exam in high school and an individual's test-taking ability. Granted, doing well in high school makes doing well on the exam easier, it is not the end-all be-all of objective evaluations of merit and potential. The difference between an 800 in a 700 is a few small mistakes. For example, I got a 710 on the math, then went on to major in math at a target school and did really well in the classes I took. I don't understand how some of you can say that you wouldn't take a 4.0 with a 1250 but would take a 3.0 with a 1400+. There's a lot of preparation involved in the SAT and some kids take it more seriously than others. Someone with a 4.0 who's juggling several extracurriculars demonstrates intelligence and hard work... someone with a 3.0 might be equally smart but is lazy. Why would you hire a lazy employee? Good scores on an exam in high school exempt someone from their academic responsibilities in college? You've got to be kidding me.

 

I was asked my SATs in an interview and then asked to explain why my GPA wasn't higher given my SAT scores. "Freshman Year" or "Pledging" are both answers that will get you out of that without a problem.

 

The SATs technically have a roughly 50% correlation with intelligence. The only people I have ever met who stick to the "you don't need to be smart to do well on the SATs" generally haven't done well on the SATs.

The bottom line is there are some jobs where you can't just put your nose to the grindstone and make up for intelligence with hard work. If you have a good GPA, that is a good achievement, you should be proud of yourself etc. But remember, firms are hiring for your potential not your actual achievements. That A in General Chem sophomore year has zero real world applicability in business- it is also very possible to get good grades without being very smart, I am sure we all know people who fit that mold.

 
SAT correlates with how smart you are Grades are an indication of how hard you work

The SAT-intelligence link has never been proven. Also, to say grades are indication of hard work is ridiculous. Are all those art and english majors getting 4.0s hidden superstars?

I know a lot of people that scored great on their SATs and bomb out in banking. You don't need to be a genius to do banking - save that for the hard sciences. Banking is much more about people skills and hard work. Obviously, you do need to be intelligent to a degree also.

To answer the original question: most banks do ask for it. How heavily they weight it depends upon the bank. NEVER lie, they may ask for an official grade report from ETS.

 

I was being recruited for a varsity sport and knew that my grades and extracurriculars would get me anywhere I wanted. So I took the SAT without preparation (1410). Does that mean that I'm not particularly intelligent?

 

I must be a total moron... I only scored 1150. I wonder if not studying and caring almost zero about my grades and testing scores had anything to do with it? Maybe it was because I was drunk/partying and working through my high school career? My GPA was also weak... 3.6, sleeping through classes. I avoided those college readiness courses for the smart kids. Why? Too much work... And I'd rather be in the classes with the hot girls with no ambitions.

Using a test score taken by 17 year-olds to judge intelligence is about as worthless as a two-legged dog. It would surprise you how many lower SAT scorers are smarter than you think.

Someone is probably going to say "You only say that because your score sucks." Yeah, ok...

 

The SAT pretty much measures what type of family environment you grew up in and what kind of intellectual and financial resources your parents have. The test is highly correlated to income level. To think that it's a test that measures intelligence is ludicrous. Check out what Bill Clinton and Bill Bradley (both Rhodes Scholars--people whom one would definitely consider to be intelligent) got on their SATs. I don't recall their exact figures, but both scored below 1200.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/29/sat

 

I did very well for my SAT, but I nevertheless do not believe that it has much to do with smarts in the "raw IQ" sense. With all the specialized test preparation agencies around prepping you on all possible variations of the questions that can come up, good test scores is really more a function of preparation and having the $$$ to attend these pricey preparation classes.

The SAT only tests two measures of intelligence - math and verbal. what about logic, "spatial" skills (whatever you call those questions which give you some series of diagrams and ask you to predict the next in the series) and other measures of IQ? The latter are important to banking too. The verbal section of SAT is a joke. you can do well by memorizing the words in the glossary of Barron's. This is not intelligence, but memory skills.

In the real world however, we all have our biases. the ivy banker will always prefer ivy applicants. the guy who scored 800 for his SAT math will prefer those who scored the same. A lawyer-turned-banker colleague of mine loves other ex lawyers. People just prefer mirror images of themselves. Why? because people like to think of themselves as smart, and other applicants who come in with similar sets of qualifications should therefore also be smart. It's a huge boost to ego.

 

Jesus...

  • you can coach for the SATs: true. But some dumbass is not going to get 1400+, no matter how much coaching he/she gets.
  • the SATs are not a 1:1 correlation with IQ. I've read around 50% but it goes up as high as 80%.
  • the reason the link isn't more widely discussed is because it is extremely un-PC.
  • please don't use one off examples as evidence for anything. Think in terms of the law of large numbers, etc. which is how firms approach recruiting. "Oh I didn't give a shit, I wanted to be awesome and not study so I got a 1100, does that make me stupid?" Honestly, yeah, you're probably not the brightest bulb in the pack (to get only 1100 even without prep). But it's a moot point, you're only one person; it's a reasonable assumption to assume in a large population you can aggregate out these one-offs.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2004/07/04/the_sat_t…

"Frey and Detterman came to these conclusions by analyzing two data sets. Using existing records, they examined the scores of 11,878 students who had taken the Armed Services Vocational Battery, designed in part as a probe of IQ, in 1979. Some 917 of these students had also taken the SAT -- and the results of the two tests correlated very closely. They also gave the Raven Test of Progressive Matrices (a very abstract IQ test, testing pattern recognition) to 104 Case Western students who had valid SAT scores on record at the university. Again, these students' IQ scores and SAT scores were tightly correlated."

Bottom line, all else being equal, a bank is going to want to hire someone with a higher IQ. Best objective measure for that? SATs.

"As many people in the field have pointed out, it's the very success of mental tests that makes [critics] hate them," says Linda Gottfredson, a professor of education at the University of Delaware. "They do a dirty job. They distinguish people according to relative differences in ability. While that's what a meritocracy is supposed to do, we somehow imagine that we can have our meritocracy and equality, too."

ideating:
- the SATs are not a 1:1 correlation with IQ. I've read around 50% but it goes up as high as 80% - you can coach for the SATs: true. But some dumbass is not going to get 1400+, no matter how much coaching he/she gets.

First point: Have you done any statistics before? Looks like you haven't. Do you know that a correlation of 0.5 equates to a R-square of 0.25? For your benefit, in layman terms, this means that IQ differences can only explain 25% of the variance in SAT scores. the other 75% of the SAT variance is explained by non-IQ factors (level of prep, income level, cultural factors, etc.). In other words, the correlation score actually disproves your point, not support it. Quite apart from that, correlation doesn't imply causality, but I don't feel like spending the time to explain this concept to you here, as the above argument is already sufficient to disprove your point.

Second point: the answer is implicit in your assertion. The SAT may be able to filter out the truly dumb (even that is arguable), but it can't filter out the average kid who have the benefit of lots of prep. The question then becomes: do you need the SAT to filter out the truly dumb? GPA and coursework can perform pretty much the same function. SAT at best is a "hygiene factor" - that is, I can say that someone who scored 1500 is probably not dumb, but that doesn't mean he's smart. In that sense, I don't put much weight on it in the recruitment process - a ridiculously bad score (

 
Best Response
Using existing records, they examined the scores of 11,878 students who had taken the Armed Services Vocational Battery, designed in part as a probe of IQ, in 1979. Some 917 of these students had also taken the SAT ...

Both the ASVAB and SAT tests have changed since then AWAY from testing IQ. Both were originally designed to test exactly that, but have long since changed to test aptitude. Therefore, the tests no longer show "intellectual firepower" (to use the incredibly stupid term that Bain consultants love).

If you really want to "drill down" on the issue, read The Bell Curve. It goes quite in depth about testing for IQ and how the SAT/ASVAB have since changed to no longer reflect intelligence.

 

Taken one step further, then why not put the gmat scores on a resume too?

Standardized tests aren't a measure of intelligence, they're a measure of one's ability to look for certain patterns in questions and provide the correct answer that the testing agency is looking for.

If one wanted to, they could easily fake a gmat score report (and I'm going to guess that the SAT reports are similar) by modifying the electronic PDF that they send out. Load up in illustrator, match the fonts and voila, 800 gmat.

 

I have done statistics- I used correlation as a layman's term for R-squared. I remember a paper from college that had done a regression analysis with ~ a .65 IQ coefficient to SAT scores, significant to 95%. Tested for heteroskedasticity (don't remember which test), the other variables were income, hours of test prep, and age. Income was about .15, test prep was .11 and age was .3 (n=~1400). I didn't mention it because I obviously don't have access to it anymore.

Correlation vs. causality of IQ and SATs is something that if you don't accept, I can't really say much that will change your mind...

The basic point I am making is that a 1540 isn't necessarily smarter than a 1520. But a 1400 is definitely smarter than a 1200. Also I think test prep will change your score maybe 50-100 points. That isn't going to move you among significant brackets; i.e. a 1200 is never going to hit the 1500+ just because he/she is rich and has prepared with private tutors. I think people are making a mistake by looking at outliers and drawing conclusions. Banks have 1000s of resumes, the easiest screen/proxy for raw intelligence is the SATs.

ideating:
I have done statistics- I used correlation as a layman's term for R-squared. I remember a paper from college that had done a regression analysis with ~ a .65 IQ coefficient to SAT scores, significant to 95%. Tested for heteroskedasticity (don't remember which test), the other variables were income, hours of test prep, and age. Income was about .15, test prep was .11 and age was .3 (n=~1400). I didn't mention it because I obviously don't have access to it anymore.

Correlation vs. causality of IQ and SATs is something that if you don't accept, I can't really say much that will change your mind...

The basic point I am making is that a 1540 isn't necessarily smarter than a 1520. But a 1400 is definitely smarter than a 1200. Also I think test prep will change your score maybe 50-100 points. That isn't going to move you among significant brackets; i.e. a 1200 is never going to hit the 1500+ just because he/she is rich and has prepared with private tutors. I think people are making a mistake by looking at outliers and drawing conclusions. Banks have 1000s of resumes, the easiest screen/proxy for raw intelligence is the SATs.

People use the SAT for a screen primarily because it's seemingly easy to understand and every college bound high school student looking to study in the US takes it--not necessarily because it's an effective proxy. The fact that the test carries so much weight in selection processes at the expense of other measures like GPA or the ACT (which I think gets stigmatized as inferior because it's primarily taken by Westerners and Midwesterners, causing East Coast people to doubt its efficacy) is wrong, period.

 

we can argue till the cows come home and still not reach a conclusion on this. Anyway, "One study found a correlation of .82 between g and SAT scores.4 Another correlation of .81 between g and GCSE scores." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ. Correlation here is r (not r square) - implying an r-square of about 64%. without being too pedantic about it, we can roughly reason that SAT is a good measurement of IQ in only 64% of the cases. You are allowing the remaining 37% to fall through the cracks - which is extremely substantial.

Secondly, if high school coursework(the GCSE is one of these) and other tests such as ACT are equally predictive of IQ (as the above quoted correlation scores show), it is irrational to place SAT on an exalted position over GPAs, ACT and other measures of scholastic achievement. It is irrational to prefer a 1,500 SAT kid with a 3.0 GPA over a 1,200 kid with a 3.9 GPA from the same school.

Lastly, in quoting research on this topic, we should realize how politicized and biased SAT research has become. There will be some researchers who, for whatever reason, have a hidden agenda to prove that certain ethnic/income groups are behind the bell curve. they go all out to prove that SAT is a good predictor of IQ, and they stop there. At the same time, other data shows that blacks & non-white hispanics consistently score lower than whites in SAT tests. Without explicitly saying so, they obviously want you to put the two pieces of "data" together to form a conclusion about the IQ of blacks and non-white hispanics. There is a hidden racial agenda to link SAT scores to intelligence. There are many academic research out there which have demolished the intellectual basis of the SAT/IQ bell curve theory and exposed the racial agendas behind such research.

Dicta qui at voluptas aut explicabo. Porro occaecati totam harum sit cupiditate. In nam hic deleniti illo quisquam reprehenderit aut et. Odit hic rerum ut aliquid consequuntur. Numquam sint qui quo.

Eaque ab dolorem debitis est. Rerum aliquid quibusdam atque quia voluptas. Eos exercitationem est iusto eum fuga.

Veritatis id quam unde. Rem culpa ipsa blanditiis doloremque et delectus aut. Perspiciatis vitae aut ut voluptatem et et maxime est. Tempora animi dolor ipsam in non nobis. Natus odio qui qui laborum culpa laborum hic.

 

Rerum consectetur incidunt eum a. Fuga quia ut sed. Minus consequuntur dolorem esse quo. Cumque sed voluptatibus ut. Et explicabo aut voluptas maxime adipisci perspiciatis illo. Quasi fugit in libero. Omnis dolor saepe similique sunt itaque accusantium omnis.

Porro veritatis nihil quo sed quo. Eaque et placeat ex unde nihil accusamus. Natus laudantium iure deserunt dolore vel veritatis.

Rerum aliquam quia placeat iusto omnis. Et amet mollitia voluptas porro exercitationem sint est. Et consectetur quam quos fuga. Quos quia laboriosam dolores atque placeat veritatis aut. Ab veritatis accusantium aperiam laboriosam. Distinctio quaerat ducimus excepturi amet voluptas dolor. Labore omnis optio id.

Consequatur illo et fugit ducimus atque mollitia quibusdam. Voluptatum quisquam voluptate dolore similique illum.

 

Veritatis facere quasi ea doloremque aut perspiciatis. Fuga quis iste minus dolore et fugiat. Commodi aut sed quo qui sunt occaecati. Est est placeat alias esse laborum quibusdam inventore laborum. Facilis eos possimus ut. Dolorem amet rerum suscipit aut omnis sed qui.

Iusto sed vero quam sint quos ex est. Voluptatibus qui expedita corrupti aliquam illum ex natus. Ut ut et aliquid eos sit doloremque cum. Aut culpa sit voluptatem aut voluptatem.

Perspiciatis debitis inventore ipsa. Debitis quia amet alias aut repudiandae ut.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
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
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
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...”