“I found my mentoring session with André very helpful, particularly because I came into it with very little understanding of commercial banking. My background is in life sciences and healthcare, and most of my career exploration so far has focused on consulting. Although I had become interested in commercial banking, I had not previously explored the area in any depth. I therefore needed a clear starting point and an honest conversation about what I should understand before deciding whether to pursue it.
André helped me establish that starting point. The session gave me a clearer way to think about commercial banking, how it differs from consulting, and what I still need to learn. Before the conversation, I was looking at opportunities and wondering whether I should begin applying alongside consulting applications. Afterwards, I understood that I needed to take a step back and make a more informed decision about whether the work genuinely interests me.
One of the most valuable aspects of the session was how it helped me recognise the gaps in my current understanding. I knew that I was new to banking, but I did not necessarily know which questions I needed to answer for myself. André’s guidance helped me think more clearly about where I am now, what I am missing, and what I should begin doing next. Having that direction was useful because it made the process feel more manageable. Rather than treating banking as a broad and unfamiliar industry, I now have a clearer starting point for learning about it.
A particularly helpful message was that I should first develop a better understanding of commercial banking and assess whether I actually like the work. I took away a sensible sequence: understand the area, decide whether it appeals to me, and then, if it does, commit to learning and preparing for applications. If I discover that the work does not suit my interests, I should be willing to recognise that and focus my efforts elsewhere. That advice sounds straightforward, but it was an important perspective for me at this stage.
The conversation made me realise that I should not rush into applying for commercial banking roles simply because I have found programmes that look interesting. Before the session, I was at risk of moving too quickly from curiosity to applications without having a strong enough understanding of the career itself. André helped me see the value of being more deliberate. I would rather make a considered application based on a genuine interest in the work than spend time applying to positions I cannot yet explain my motivation for pursuing.
Another important takeaway was recognising how substantial the differences between banking and consulting can be. Because consulting has been my main focus, it had become my reference point when thinking about other careers. The session helped me realise that I cannot assume banking will involve similar work, suit the same preferences, or require exactly the same preparation. I need to understand banking on its own terms rather than view it mainly as another option alongside consulting.
I also appreciated that the session was useful even though I did not finish it with a final career decision. At this exploratory stage, greater clarity about what I do not yet know is meaningful progress. I now feel better equipped to evaluate my interest, identify what I need to learn, and decide whether commercial banking deserves a more focused place in my career plans.
Overall, André was very helpful, and the session met an important need for me as someone starting with limited knowledge of the field. Its greatest value was giving me direction and encouraging a more thoughtful approach to my next steps. I left with a clearer understanding of my knowledge gaps, a more realistic perspective on the difference between banking and consulting, and a better sense of how to move forward before committing to applications.”
Simon-Kucher is mentioned in the WSO dataset as a firm that offers a less bureaucratic environment compared to larger consulting firms like Deloitte or Accenture. If you dislike bureaucracy, Simon-Kucher could be a good fit. While it doesn't have the same brand recognition or breadth of opportunities as MBB, it is still a reputable consulting firm, particularly known for its expertise in pricing, sales, and marketing strategies.
Regarding the Chicago office specifically, there isn't detailed information in the dataset about its culture or operations. However, smaller offices like Simon-Kucher’s tend to foster a more tight-knit culture compared to larger firms with national or regional staffing models. This could mean closer relationships with partners and potentially more tailored staffing opportunities.
In terms of exit opportunities, Simon-Kucher may not offer the same level of prestige or breadth of exits as MBB, but it can still provide solid opportunities, especially in roles related to pricing, strategy, or marketing. It’s worth noting that exit options often depend on your performance, networking, and the specific projects you work on.
For advice, focus on showcasing your analytical skills and interest in pricing and strategy during the interview. Simon-Kucher values candidates who can demonstrate a strong understanding of their niche focus areas.
Sources: Some Thoughts on Managing Multiple Offers (Consulting / MBB), Is Chicago IB Pay Lower than NYC?, Is there HONESTLY a difference in the quality of work between Strategy& (Tier 2 consulting) and MBB?, Lazard vs Moelis Chicago Offices, Chicago BB and EB Ranking
From what I could gather, they're a boutique consultancy specialized in commercial strategy and revenue optimization. They're not as well known as other T2s, but at least from what I can tell, their comp is solid and folks go from them to other T2s.
Hope others can chime in with more info.
I have a couple connections at Accenture, should I do SKP or Accenture Strategy in that case?
congrats on future big 4
Lmao! A lot of people from my school go there, and it’s definitely an option, but I’d rather focus on the strategy side. Also Ik that EY Parthenon is going through a lot of hiring issues rn, and would rather work at a firm with a variety of projects.
SKP isn't a T2 in the traditional sense.
The T2s are generalist strategy consulting firms that are very good at everything, and in many specific vertical/functional/geographical combos one or more of them are often even better than MBB. But on average they're losing out to MBB.
SKP does do a little bit of all kinds of strategy work, but they're really known as experts in pricing strategy. As in easily on par with or arguably better than MBB at it. So it's like they are a T1 for pricing, and at best a T2 or maybe a T3/4/5+++ in other areas (I don't know which of their other areas they are stronger vs weaker in). For somewhat similar examples you can think of Altman Solon for TMT or Bridgespan/Dalberg for NGOs. Or you could also think of it like SKP is a B4 firm, and replace "audit/tax" with "pricing strategy".
Provident ad atque enim voluptatem laudantium aut. Corrupti velit est voluptas ut inventore excepturi est hic.
Et quae est ut est. Assumenda facilis aut aut voluptatem qui.
Reiciendis placeat est dolore sunt. Tempore nostrum maiores dolores sapiente. Consequuntur facilis quo consequatur quisquam et nostrum ab.
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...