Can somebody explain JP Morgan's new no-networking thing?
Does this mean we'd all be better off focusing our networking efforts on other banks? Is networking there totally useless now in terms of acceptance?
Trending Content
| +171 | The "Not So Obvious" things that get you a return offer? | 20 | 7h | |
| +101 | Is my life over after not getting GS? | 26 | 10m | |
| +67 | Best IB group on the Street | 29 | 2s | |
| +56 | BIG FOUR ARE PARADISE | 15 | 9h | |
| +49 | Thoughts and tips on how to speak like an investment banker. | 25 | 10h | |
| +48 | Tell me one good reason why Jefferies isn’t going to be a top bank in the next 5 years | 23 | 2h | |
| +36 | UBS Outlook | 28 | 1d | |
| +34 | How to deal with egotistical team? | 6 | 3d | |
| +33 | Highest Paid Bankers in Toronto? | 51 | 8h | |
| +26 | Got RBC offer but I have cold feet accepting. | 33 | 1d |
Career Resources
Well I'm not sure if it's totally useless, but a lot of people have been saying that JPM is trying their best to move away from it.
Analysts and associates can't influence the process, but VPs and higher can. I had no luck from any analyst or associate there pushing my resume, but once I got in contact with VPs and up I got connected with some directors that pushed my resume directly to HR to get me into a superday.
How did you get in touch with people at the firm if JPM doesn't allow external emails? All my attempts have automatically bounced back. Should I use Linkedin?
As part of your application you’ll have to do a pymetrics assessment. You basically play these computer games that assess your attention span, attention to detail, rote memory, etc.
This is used as a screen and the next step is a hirevue. Hirevue has AI capabilities that screen candidates (believe this is based on eye contact, annunciation, expressiveness, facial cues) but they’re probably also reviewed by people in the IBD
Next step is superday I believe. The first two steps are supposed to cut out networking and prevent nepotism. Who knows if it will work. Believe it was rolled out last year for the first time.
Sounds creepy and big brotherish. i miss the days where you could get an interview by BSing about college sports with an alum
Haha yeah for sure. Interesting to see if this works. Sounds promising but they might be thinking too hard. If you’re able to successfully network and get referrals I think that’s a good sign you have the EQ to succeed on the job. Plus, if you made it to that point you probably have the resume (IQ) as well.
YESSSS!!! Seriously. WTF. Everything is SUCH a big effing deal now with hiring. They make it so stressful for people!
Love that man. All these kids these days.
Facts
McKinsey started doing those type of game assessments a few years ago.
BCG too, they're definitely trying too hard to make it seem like HR adds value. For a position with "Human" in the name they seem like they're removing humanity from the process.
is this being rolled out globally? I mean across all JPM IBD offices? Curious if this is being implemented at regional LatAm offices as well
God, I hate Human Resources.
Amen, brother! Not sure if I hate compliance more though with all the useless training/courses that they make it mandatory to do...
Pymetrics don't even rate you based on performance, they rate you on how similar your answers are to people who currently work at the firm to see if it's a good fit. That and they measure your results against the firm's current strategy or situation, so basically the exact same results taken 1 year apart could result in two very different outcomes as far as an interview offer goes. It's a bunch of crap, AI hiring techniques sound good to developers who lack social skills but in the real world I can't see it making sense. Furthermore, since a lot of these tests are speed based the simple fact that you took it on an iphone or a computer could make a difference, or if a candidate has a broken arm they wouldn't be able to perform as well.
Source: I took one of these for a company and that's what I was told.
I networked with an analyst who told me that the hirevue isn't reviewed by people and is entirely based on the AI's assessment of your comfortability. Not sure if this was fully true, however.
Makes sense. I heard GS has actual bankers review them tho
Really? I networked with an analyst at JPM who said her team is directly responsible for reviewing Hirevues. This was for ER though, not sure if it's different for different positions
I heard from other students that JP Morgan actually reviews the interviews by HR. I know other banks use AI but these are just from what I heard of others.
where did you get this info from? not doubting you but this does seem somewhat absurd
can confirm the above as I did it last year for summer 2020.
can confirm, goldman doing the same.
is this implemented globally?
this is silly and takes away one of the most important things you’ll need as you grow as a banker....sales/networking skills
is this actually a thing? people keep posting stuff like this with no sourcing.
Can confirm. Went through FT 2020 process and ended up with an offer. People who I networked with said they had minimal referral power.
For what group did you do FT 2020 process? FIG? My understanding was groups did not have much space for full time hiring from internal candidates let alone external.
Can also confirm, went through this last year. Still had networking calls with bankers to help get my name in the mix if I got past the Pymetrics test
So is networking helpful past a certain point (pymetrics)?
Still, the hiring process is always a result of people internally championing you as a candidate. Networking never hurts. At the very least, you'll get to learn more about the group and firm. And even if it plays a small part, it's worth doing given the competitiveness.
Anybody have any idea how many people JPM usually take for IBD NYC? Especially with this new format do you think it'll stay the same or will it go down?
Can literally anyone on the other side shine some light on the Pymetrics... I get the cognitive tests etc but this seems absurd to base candidacy off of
I took it and agree about it being BS. For S&T, I guess I could see how some of the games tested risk taking and concentration (even then it's a stretch), but I'm pretty sure they used the same ones for IB too which is ridiculous. I really doubt that having fast enough reflexes to hit the space bar when your screen flashes a symbol is going to help very much.
To specify one challenge in particular, I was told I had some amount (maybe 30ish?) balloons and I would take one at a time to inflate. Clicking on the balloon would inflate it slightly. I could click it over and over until it popped, or when I thought it was big enough, put it aside and get points proportional to how big I made it. If I click too many times, it pops and I lose all the points for that balloon. The trick is that each balloon pops at a different number of clicks, and you get no initial information on the distribution of clicks until it pops.
It's actually an interesting test of being able to learn a new system under pressure and limited information, but it seems kind of nutty to base your first screening on that kind of stuff.
haha I played that game too but don't think I did too well on it. My strategy was to pick a number (I think it was like 5 or 6) then when I hit that number take the money on every balloon. Just curious what was your strategy?
I used a pattern bc a lot of these games are how well u can interpret information.
I took it too during my summer last year in IB, and were told they do use our data as a benchmark for applicants applying to incoming programs. Over time as they have more data and more classes use the pymetrics this point will probably change, but I’m not sure how legitimate our current baseline data is. Considering it was stressed to us that our performance on pymetrics will not impact our employment, all of the interns in my group collectively admitted to not putting much thought into our performance on the online games. I’m not sure how that could color people’s thought process to approaching the games in the future but I thought it was worth adding.
The idea is to equalize the playing field. We all understand that banking is traditionally an Ivy League culture and I think JPM might have realized that the non-target analysts were performing to a higher degree (most likely due to pure grit and coming from nothing for most students so they are hungry as hell and will stop at nothing to be top bucket)- they want to harness that work ethic and give them a greater chance of getting into the firm.
It's a tough decision to make from a hiring perspective as Ivy Leagues have worked for so long- but maybe this path is better- then again maybe its not- only time will tell. Suffice it to say its at least a positive step in the right direction towards their board's and Dimon's mission of reducing wealth inequality by giving a chance to students from less wealthy backgrounds. Hopefully this can lead to a positive change on wall street- allow for greater performance, less nepotism, greater wealth mobility and overall a healthier society.
Why are you so certain that those from certain socioeconomic and educational backgrounds aren't going to drastically outperform others, including Diversity candidates? Assuming the screener is truly objective, couldn't this actually lead to less diversity, along with other unintended consequences?
I'm not sure where you see I am certain anywhere in my post. What I am saying is creating a more "leveled playing field" is in everyone's interest- you can hire those that are deemed most qualified for the job.
Diversity is not the goal here, unless diversity is naturally occurring from this approach to meritocracy. Hiring anyone who is less qualified knowingly (whether its affirmative action or nepotism) is never healthy for a firm. Taking a meritocratic approach is quite literally the most fair and balanced way to approach recruiting talent- and that is by definition.
It is in society's best interest to give chances to those whom are most qualified- period- whether that's a rich kid from Westchester, a poor kid from the Bronx, or a middle class kid from the Midwest.
I have never understood why attending a target equals a wealthy background. There are a plethora of smart kids from non-traditional backgrounds that study at top targets (either through financial aid or by taking on debt). At the end of the day, the top schools want smart and talented people, just like employers. Discussions about diversity are nowadays always based on the assumption that the only way to reach people from non-traditional backgrounds is to expand recruiting to less selective colleges. Yes, there are without doubt a lot talented people at these colleges. But most of the students are there based on weak past academic performance and not due to financial constraints. Also worth considering is that the top institutions are far more selective today than just 15-20 years ago.
This is really inaccurate and honestly I understand why you write it, There are certainly students from lower income families at top targets- however the proportion is extremely small and many are there for other reasons unrelated to academics- like diversity.
The vast majority of smart kids that come from middle class families have two options: 1) in state school where they most likely got full tuition scholarship or heavy discount, or 2) take on enormous debt to attend top target
Many realize taking on debt north of 250K is simply unreasonable (even debt north of 100K) and therefore they default to the free or almost free state option. These schools- when combined have thousands of students who got into "top" targets but turned them down due to financial reasons. This is part of the missing talent that is getting overlooked.
At top targets you mainly find upper middle class/wealthy/extremely poor and not the middle ground which btw is like 80%+ of American college students. This is the middle that is often "forgotten" and is what drove the last election in the US- politics aside though this is a group that would perform better with a meritocratic system. Other groups that would perform better are asian/indian students who often have great academics and attend great schools but dont have the network to get in through nepotism.
AFAIK at least for last year, the pymetrics game data was not used to make hiring decisions and everyone (above the gpa cutoff and other cutoffs I guess) got the hirevue. Since it is such a new system I doubt they are going to be placing a ton of weight on it. At the end of the day, my group this summer at JPM seems like a group of kids who would typically get offers anyways, so not like its some revolutionary system to find a university of phoenix student who is actually a financial genius. Prob more for the PR than anything tbh.
wrong. spoke with employees at jpm who said they’re unable to do anything, even if the student goes to HYP, to pull candidates to interviews if they do not do well on pymetrics
lol thats def what lower level FT employees are saying but VP+ defintiely still have pull to keep you in the process from my personal experience
can confirm this no-networking thing existed in SA 2020 recruiting. Many contacts straight up told me they basically have zero referral power. this is probably part of some equal opportunity bs, but also maybe correlates to how JPM was fined a shit ton of money for nepotism hires in China back in 2015 or something
You guys are all horrified lol. For the last few years this is how it’s been in almost every company (not just bank, company) in the UK.
For grad jobs, networking is fast becoming a thing of the past. Not sure if that’s a good thing.
Yep, literally every firm and industry in the UK operates like this for the most part. In all honesty, it's a good thing if you're actually good, and a far much more meritocratic system.
"Relationships and shmoozing are a part of the job". Let's not pretend that everyone has access to the same relationships and that these relationships always exist because someone "networked their ass off". Tons of people have their referrals come through from family, family friends, and many spheres that regular people don't have access too.
Secondly, shmoozing is a lot easier with people who are similar to you, so giving out interviews to people who have shmoozed well is just a repetitive cycle of the same sorts of people being recruited over and over again. It's one of the structural ways where people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who can't relate as much with the hobbies/lifestyle/upbringing and just naturally won't be able to shoot the shit as much with alum get left behind.
Overall, I get why it sucks for some people, networking has always been a strength for them and they've been able to leverage the ability to earn their spot, which they completely deserve. But it's seriously for the greater good, and one of the most non-biased ways to give out interviews, without resorting to policies like affirmative action which I know much of the board is against.
Would be interesting to compare the % of i-bankers coming from a poor background in the US compared to the % in the UK
I seriously doubt the no-networking thing can ever effectively ban nepotism. Senior bankers can and will always find a way to slot a client's kid into the job if it means winning new business.
What this can only achieve is a) stroke HR's ego and make them feel in control b) PR candy for equal opportunity or whatever bullshit c) shun away kids from average backgrounds who have good people skills, went above and beyond to improve their recruiting chances and instead hire more fucksticks with a paper-perfect resume who feel entitled to an interview just because they have a 4.0
Really hope this doesn't become street-wide practice...
Yeah but most of the tests are complete BS. Between networking and the random luck of a situational judgment test, I would take networking every time, since then you can at least control the outcome
Nice post. Networking is definitely great and some people are good at it and also just decent people, but like you said a lot just get it through family connections or having the same "background" that is typical in IB.
I guess there are pros and cons to the system because you also want to have a culture that is cohesive and gels. Complicated topic.
In the US it seems much more about networking whereas in the UK it seems more about your stats and performance on metrics type tests.
HR deffo abuse their power sometimes. How would HR people who have never worked a day in banking know what it takes to succeed in this field. Much better to have analysts/associates screen everybody first and not someone whose job is to come up with selfie contests.
I'm assuming this would be for analysts and associates. Not sure how relevant this would be to bring rainmakers laterally, given that this business runs on relationships and networking.
spot on. just because it can't get you in the door, doesn't mean it can't help you climb the ladder
Is this also true for associates though? Thought MBA recruiting is a lot more networking-based than undergrad.
This is due to affirmative action and banks getting pushback on diversity and everything. This gives them more of a reason to hire people they want. Equalizes the playing field if the banks are using it ethically...or an excuse to take diverse candidates with flimsy justifications through HireVeu. Hopefully not the latter but the world is grim place.
I took Mckinsey’s version of this pymetrics test (forget what they call it but theirs is a game) recently and can confirm it’s absolutely retarded. Very frustrating not knowing what they’re testing for and I’m convinced there’s no way to “win” but they’re trying to figure out how close you get with no optimal solution. Maybe I’m wrong and just did terrible but the whole thing was frustrating and you can’t sit here and tell me that someone can’t make PowerPoint slides for a client based on the fact that they could only keep 7 out of 8 fish alive in a retarded game. Whole thing is obnoxious.
it’s 2020, you’re a third year analyst, and you’re still saying retarded? sheeesh
You're retarded.
Thank you, intern
You're actually retarded.
Lol did you just call me out on political correctness? I can’t even keep up with what libs think is politically correct anymore. Go to your safe space kid.
I got news for you Mr. Intern - if you get triggered by stuff like that, there's a 100% chance your senior team members will hate you. You can choose not to believe me on this, but when you get passed over for an A to A or switching into that group you really want, you should know why.
Fuck off retard
Completely agree (haven't ever taken one of these tests however). It's one thing if it's a directly applicable game when you're hiring a developer or someone on a quant options team but these pymetrics have such absurd predictive value for the roles they are created for.
I went through the process at JPM last year and can shed light on this. First, on networking: It is true that analysts and associates have little to no ability to influence the process. They can refer through a company portal, but it means jack. However, once I got connected with VP's, things changed. While the VP's themselves may not have the ability to influence the process either, they are far more likely to connect you with an ED or IB hiring manager for the program you are seeking. Those EDs do in fact have the ability to strongly recommend a candidate to HR and get them to invite you to a super day (this is what happened to my non-target ass).
What this means is that networking your way to an interview at JPM is still possible, but it is a lot more difficult because it requires targeting upper level employees down the line. You start by building a network with analysts and associates and get them to connect you to VPs/EDs who can really get you an interview.
Regarding Pymetrics, as I've seen that come up a lot in this thread, it means nothing for now. I confirmed with an HR ED in campus recruiting that it's just in a data collection phase for now. They need years of data to analyze whether pymetrics score profiles are an accurate measure of employee success on the job and what traits are the best indicators. Do your best on the assessment and don't sweat it, for now they only use hirevue to screen superday candidates.
Wow that's way too much power for HR. Why should they get to decide who the bankers get to work with?
Equalize teh playing field. To look better to societyl.
HR doesn't actually make the decision to hire anyone, the bankers who conduct interviews at superdays do. HR's power is that they control the pool of candidates who get put in front of those bankers at a superday.
JPM is the largest bank in the US and therefore all eyes are on us. Just by being in that position we have a target on our backs and if we even appear nepotistic or discriminatory there will be widespread criticism of our firm. I am not saying it is or is not the most optimal hiring process from a candidate quality standpoint, but optically it is the most fair and it shields us from serious corporate social responsibility criticism.
Thanks a ton for the in depth info.
How do you ask them to connect with an ED or IB hiring manager? I usually get stuck with asking for the right people in a call.
Bump
Pymetrics feels like bullshit.
Here's how it works: They get top performers within the firm to take the tests / train the model, and use those results as a target for potential candidates / hires.
Basically, the more your test performance correlates with the target model, the better a candidate you are - because in theory, you should be more similar to the rain makers.
My problem with this is that the training sets themselves could be heavily biased.
Totally agree. Seems riddled with inherent biases if comparing to current analysts.
Welcome to the meritocracy, bitches.
How does this work for FT recruiting? Everyone always says FT recruiting is networking based (you talk to someone at bank, they refer you to an opening if there is one). If JPM doesn't value networking, do they post FT openings online (handshake, linkedin, etc) or do you still need networking to get a referral for that?
Pretty sure the whole networking resume push thing was always overstated/cracked up to be more than it is. In reality, no one actually forwarded your resume anywhere. I’ve never seen it happen and I would guess a large %% of people who told you they did, never delivered. Shit, I wouldn’t even know where to start and I ain’t about to waste my time figuring out who to send it to. It’s just one of those things that is rehearsed.
Scream and yell all you want about your one-off examples, but I would bet a large # of calls and chats end with “Yeah, great to hear from other alum, I will pass your info along to our recruiting team” and the alum never actually executes.
This doesn’t mean networking is a waste if time. Plenty to be gained. I am just pointing out a layer of skepticism I have based on what I have done and seen from my peers. This also means that a few online screenings aren’t really changing anything. Submit the resume and cross your fingers.
I think it depends on how strong a relationship you've built in terms of whether or not they'll actually push for you. Anecdotal but I do have personal evidence of this happening.
If I get a a kid who I really think is a strong candidate, I’ll flag it to our staffer and resource manager so we know to look for them when their resume comes up from the online application. I’ve seen plenty of kids who barely networked who got looks though, and I’ve seen lots of aggressive networkers who got nowhere because their CV sucked.
What I understand about the JPM policy is that they are getting rid of OCR, not networking per se.
I agree. I have forwarded a few onward, but this is the one-off example and we were reached out to directly on a group email chain requesting candidates. At this point, most of the analysts I know are getting multiple networking emails per week. Just too many to manage and pay attention to.
The networking tone on this forum is something like cold email > phone chat > coffee chat > resume push. I just don’t believe that chain ends in the resume push as frequently as one may think (or is told).
Honestly don't like this and especially don't get how this promotes equal opportunity. First, you're exchanging the biases of your employees referring someone for the biases of the people who designed these tests. Doesn't sound like a big difference. This debate has already come up with the SATs etc being criticized for cultural bias. I can also honestly see an industry building up that prepares rich kids for these tests just like the SAT and college applications even though the test isn't "studyable". Finally, those who networked to get a role (without family connections) have likely demonstrated a number of skills that are crucial for client facing positions that they won't be able to demonstrate in pymetrics. My experience from a generally nontarget state school is that successful networking with alumni has been almost entirely merit based and the only big disadvantage I have is there is little on campus recruiting (which this new system doesn't seem to do anything to address). The way to eliminate nepotism if that's their aim is to just make and enforce strict rules on conflicts of interest and hiring which really isn't that complicated.
this is why... https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/investing/jpmorgan-china-hiring-briber…
Chinese are very different the US culture. Not applicable
I was told by someone high up at JPM that this exactly why. After the fine, senior leadership determined that nepotism could potentially be a threat to their overall business and started to hand over more and more control of the hiring process to HR. Eventually the entire process will be controlled by HR to mitigate any risks associated with hiring those related to friends of the firm.
This is explains why the whole process has become more HR centric over the years.
JPM is a global bank. SEC fined them for actions in China, so it does not really matter how different Chinese culture is.
wtf I have a call with an analyst tomorrow...
Not all is lost. when you do your hirevue when you apply you can use the conversation as a brief anecdote when they ask you why jp.
It seems like JPM is moving away from intense networking ->interview. Seems similar to what GS is doing. As mentioned in the thread it seems like unless you get VPs/MDs to really advocate for you, speaking to others isn't that helpful, but obviously you may need to because some senior people may ask "who have you spoken with".
They gave me banana. but I can't give the poopoo?
I believe Goldman has started doing it as well
Fuckin HR
When does jpmorgan app open???
I don't know exactly when they will open, but the analyst I spoke to today said that they will begin recruiting and scheduling interviews late July at the earliest. But he did say that he's not that involved in recruiting so I can't be sure.
Does anyone know when they will start opening applications??
Should be sometime this coming week, my guess is Monday
For regular recruiting? I thought it opened along with GS and BAML?
Join the JPMorgan Chase Talent Network and they'll let you know when applications open.
From my understanding, it seems like they do still have certain recruiters for schools, however, they don’t play nearly as much as a role in years past.
This is only partially true. I got my resume pushed by an ED and had an interview within a day at JPM. I wouldn't bother to ask junior members though- but networking in itself is helpful to get to know the firm so you can talk about it in your interviews.
You recently had an interview?
this was last year
is this only for the US or also UK/HK?
I like this policy a lot. Good for them.
I'd say this is a bad idea. Instead of people who are in the business selecting those who they see will help....the business, now they have a bunch of glorified finger print takers making those decisions. It doesn't bode well for the long term health of the company.
Anyone heard back from their application for SA 2021?
Ullam libero eveniet aut eum consequatur et non. Placeat quia et similique est. Eum ut nemo a quae.
Doloremque neque dolores doloremque autem ut a. Id libero maxime laboriosam est aut numquam minus est. Est voluptatem voluptas veniam enim.
Id nisi praesentium ea delectus sed. Reprehenderit laudantium ut minima nobis error perspiciatis doloribus.
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...
Et laboriosam reiciendis est mollitia eos at. Est quia a consequatur et placeat. Voluptas sed dignissimos facere ab sit exercitationem. Et aliquam id voluptas impedit ut consequatur. Alias est optio eos voluptatem aliquam nihil.
Quis explicabo ullam facere non officia amet nihil. Necessitatibus voluptatem eveniet provident aut. Quia est eum reiciendis id ut. Inventore est reiciendis ipsum rerum et a ut. Atque saepe veritatis odit pariatur voluptatem qui voluptatem. Delectus officia est id possimus totam ad.
Dolore ut architecto cumque consequuntur. Rerum officiis voluptatem sunt aut sed beatae. Corporis voluptatem et beatae. Doloremque minima id quae rerum quis.
Non non qui et non omnis. Id repellat iure praesentium fugiat. Ut explicabo et vel consequatur. Est accusantium illum possimus molestias. Dolor earum facere et deserunt veniam perferendis. Labore dolorem voluptatum optio quasi modi magni.
Architecto beatae aperiam ut aut commodi. Odio magnam neque ab aspernatur. Ipsam esse cumque quibusdam est.
Aliquid qui ut omnis est molestias. Veritatis eaque fuga perspiciatis dolore et. Totam maxime aliquid laboriosam vero explicabo. Incidunt qui praesentium nisi et nostrum inventore.
At voluptatem adipisci at incidunt nemo omnis dicta. Eos rerum quo officia voluptatem. Est fugit error ut placeat fugit et quia ut. Adipisci perspiciatis sunt nihil optio quos earum. Sit ut ut est provident totam. Sint ad aut eligendi ab dolorem mollitia.
Dolor quibusdam odit nesciunt corrupti qui sequi vel voluptas. Sunt nam in molestias.