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 - Investment Banking Forum
Career Resources
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.
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
YESSSS!!! Seriously. WTF. Everything is SUCH a big effing deal now with hiring. They make it so stressful for people!
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.
God, I hate Human Resources.
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.
this is silly and takes away one of the most important things you’ll need as you grow as a banker....sales/networking skills
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.