Hot Take: WSO (and IB, in general) overhypes quantity over quality in networking/applications/interviews
Potentially hot take based entirely on personal experience: I think the often advocated strategy to cast a wide net for networking/applications/interviews can be detrimental for some prospective monkeys. What are folks’ thoughts on limiting networking/applications/interviews to a select few that you can really focus on wowing?
Coming from a non-target, non-finance background, all the advice I read on WSO (and heard from the few IBers I connected with) was to shoot out as many networking connections as possible, send out as many applications as possible, take as many interviews as you were offered. This strategy seems to be glorified (ref: recent post on “I finally got an IB offer after over 300 rejections. Never give up.”) I understand the value in grit, determination, etc; these are clearly beneficial traits in IB. However, I can’t help but think that some folks may be better off getting into the industry by applying to 5-10 places that they can make a clear connection to, getting involved in 2-3 processes that they’re satisfied with, and really going all out for for 1-2 banks by the superday round.
Obviously, this is based on my personal strategy, and I’m biased because it worked for me. After I got 2 first round interview offers that I was satisfied with, I stopped all other networking/processes and used any of my extra time getting technicals/behavioral perfected. Obviously, this can be high-risk if you don’t perform well on a certain day, don’t connect with a specific bank after the first round, etc. But I think the extra time/attention you can dedicate to the interviews with the 1-2 banks you move forward with can dramatically improve your chances. I think this is an especially useful tactic for my fellow non-target, non-finance/accounting/econ folks trying to break in from the “outside”.
Anyway, enough of my rant. Anybody else have the same thoughts/advice to prospective monkeys trying to break in? Anybody think that this is absolutely off-base and ridiculous? I’d love to hear what folks with more experience are thinking.
100% agree. Your expected value is maximized when you spend the lion’s share of your time and effort on a few groups (which if you do it right will all be high probability outcomes) as opposed to dozens of lower probability opportunities. To me this all comes down to knowing what you want to do and why. You should have a real passion for the industry, culture, and/or geography of the group — this will help immensely in interviews. If you don’t find yourself becoming excited and passionate about the opportunity, you shouldn’t pursue it at all. Working 80 hours a week at something you don’t really like is utterly soul crushing, and I never understood people who subject themselves to this.
Disagree. At any big name brand bank, recruiting is a complete black hole. There’s always candidates who are great and have networked with a bunch of people who don’t make it past a resume screen for some BS reason. You don’t want to invest a ton of time on one bank, submit a resume, and get dinged on a HireVue for some BS reason or because the HR person was grumpy when they happened to click your app. It’s too random of a process to not rely on sheer numbers to a certain extent
I think we’re all quite risk reverse?
No reason to just go for 10-15 opportunities when you know there’s a big chance it might fail. Rather than going for everything to make sure to land something
Velit voluptatem eum inventore est est. Omnis id excepturi rerum sed amet beatae. Sunt cupiditate aut ea aut aut.
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...