London recruitment-can't understand how it works.
What is the point of going to a target school if everyone, irrespective of their university, gets an online assessment invite?
Are firms actually getting so many applications that they need to weed out candidates even before knowing which school they go to? I always thought that being from a top-target+good degree would make life easier, but it seems that there are 3 assessment rounds for all positions (including asynchronous video interviews) before a human even looks at your CV.
Recruitment in this city is brutal and ridiculously competitive. Especially regarding consulting which is funny since consulting pay can be quite poor.
The process is quite simple though:
Apply > Get rejected
Would rather get rejected by a human who thinks I am not a good fit/smart enough than a random software and crappy AI tool.
Mate based on this post you're going to get rejected either way
If you can't do a few hours preparation for these tests that's on you
Globally, in many industries, basic psychometric/intelligence testing is used as a preliminary recruitment step to cut down the amount of CVs to review. This is a fairly simple and logical concept. Further, it is relatively easy to prepare for said tests the same way you would an interview. Sure, the tests may be flawed - but who cares? The hiring company still gets plenty of good candidates to interview. They don't care if a few good candidates (who couldn't pass an online IQ test...) were cut.
You ask "what is the point of going to a target school?" (if everyone gets the tests etc.). The point is that once you have passed the testing, your CV looks better because you went to Oxford/Cambridge/LSE! How do you not understand this? What do you expect? To skip half the recruitment process because they went to a 'target'? That's not how it works and not why people recommend going to a target uni.
Honestly, if your post and questions are actually honest they may struggle with recruitment.
thats the dumbest whining ive heard in a long time, rather have everyone being given the chance to kick ass in tests instead of daddy and legacy admissions doing the job for you + literally 80% of the banks use the exact same test with not even different numbers + those tests should not be difficult except for maybe the kornferry logical one so whats your point
It's really not that hard to understand. HR wants to minimise human labour on (frankly) admin-y tasks like reviewing CVs. How can they do that while still maintaining a reasonably high confidence of attracting talented individuals? Tests where success has some reasonable correlation with the attributes they're looking for. Yes some people may get weeded out unfairly but who cares? Is one target student really that different from another? Is that weeded out target student really worth the extra effort and money of reviewing a ton more CVs? Would they even get selected from their CV anyway (good CV =/= good candidate)?
All recruitment hot zones have a game to play, the US's is networking, London's is different. The game is the game. Learn to play.