How do bankers talk about candidates post-superday
Do you chat shit about the kids your interviewed in the group meeting right after all the candidates leave? What makes a candidate stand out in the wrong way? How long does it take you to make your decision?
I’m sure it depends on the firm, etc. but in general:
1) no there is no chatting “shit” about candidates. It is mostly just quick thumbs up/thumbs down and the reasons depending on the interview (technicals were right/wrong, shows the values we are looking for, etc)
2) you will stand out for bad reasons if you miss the analytical and technical questions, if you don’t know why you want to be in banking or at that specific firm, you don’t have a good story for how you got to where you are, you can’t track the conversation, etc
3) decisions are usually made quickly. Will usually fall into three camps: 1) definitely yes, 2) definitely no and 3) hold/maybe. #3 is where the candidate was good but not great and (especially if one of the first superdays) firms will have them on hold to figure out whether they want to make an offer.
when i was interning i sat next to a senior associate:
"hey anon"
"what"
"look at this chick" (shows me facebook profile of female applicant)
"holy shit she's cute"
"yeah if she can start earlier than the guy we just interviewed we're gonna take her"
"yeah please do"
chick has not even been interviewed yet
LOL how did the interview go with her
It may sound like a troll. But this is sadly probably true lmao.
1) People chat about the extremes: Really good candidates that they'd love to have or really bad. generally not good practice to chat about applicants so it's not like a big deal, no one will remember you if they talk about you unless you did something ridiculous during the interview.
yes, we print out hilarious cold emails / networking stuff.
2) being really weird / socially inept or technically incompetent. Runner-up is saying incorrect stuff about the firm or seeming too enthusiastic about the firm or banking. you don't really know shit about the firm until you work there, no one loves junior level banking, just say your cookie cutter answer and move on.
3) Varies by firm, group (coverage vs. product, M&A vs. RX, etc.), and if applicable, target school team (sometimes each target school will run its own process. sometimes all target schools will put their candidates into one large pool. it depends.)
Decisions/delibrations happen very quickly, as it's important to make decisions with the interview fresh in your mind. Decision process varies by firm. Some might break candidates into buckets, some might have each interviewer rank/score the candidate and list the candidate from highest to lowest scores, again it differs by firm/group/team. Above poster is correct that if you miss obvious stuff you're cut, because there are too many applicants in the pool and too many that got the obvious stuff right. Once you get the obvious stuff down, the calculus is between personality and further intelligence / technicality, which will depend on what the firm looks for and its culture.
finally, decision NOTIFICATION typically is treated as an ASAP task. This is why firms tend to communicate decisions on same day / next day, especially for successfully getting an offer. This is so they can get a sense of their candidate yield and know how much to pull from their waitlist. If you don't get a yes or no immediately, you're likely on the waitlist. Alternatively, firms that have multiple final-round dates might look to standardize a decision notification date, so if there are two dates for superdays and you take the first and you don't hear back immediately don't be too surprised.
When you say culture and what the firm looks for does that sometimes include being polished and well-spoken?
It's hard to speak for what all firms look for, but yes, being polished and well-spoken in your answers is always a good thing. What I meant by above is that, once a firm has a pool of "acceptable" candidates technically and behaviorally, the firm makes its final decisions based off of varying preferences that put a candidate over the edge / over one another. I know for a fact some firms - no names though - absolutely prioritize technicality and will take the literal smartest candidates, and some other firms will prefer the more social or polished candidate to the marginally smarter candidate.
Also, "firm" here is a misnomer, as recruiting practices can largely vary by firm, group, target team, or the individua. I've seen decision schemes where everyone delivers their comments and one individual makes the picks. I've seen decision schemes where it's more collaborative. So it all depends, but to directly answer your question, it's always better to be polished than not, assuming you're there technically as well.
Discussions happen immediately after interviews. Offers are given the day of the interview unless it's a Friday.
I imagine something like the Animal House pledge review.
How do they measure candidates after group placement day
Guys, its not fucking rocket science. It's the same way any group throughout human history has ever made a decision. Interviewers get together in a conference room, talk as normal people do, and reach a consensus. At the end of the day it comes down a combination of likability and intelligence
Not in terms of 'this guy is an 8.7/10 likeable but 6.5/10 smart while the girl was 7.4324/10 likeable but 10/10 smart', but more like 'yeah Jennie is pretty chill and knows her stuff, even if she flubbed the LBO question. I like Mark too though' And then somebody will say why they like or dislike Mark. And then somebody will vouch for Tom. And they go back and forth for a few minutes until a decision is reached. And then people go back to their desks to crank out a pitch due tonight and forget about Tom and Jennie and Mark until one of them hits the desk in 9 month.
Jesus. Don't overthink this.
It's probably less (/ a lot less) in-depth than you think. Usually a pretty even split between answer quality and general likeability, with more shading towards the former in earlier rounds. IB isn't rocket science and neither are the interviews, or the debrief and discussions thereafter.
In terms of culling the list, debates typically aren't too spirited. If someone in the room is really high on a candidate, he / she will almost always be going through to the next round, since no one else in the room will have too strong a view (and won't want to rock the 'actual workplace boat' anyways) by really taking a colleague to task. This is why it's really good to have someone in your corner -- preference will still be given to a kid who crushes all the questions, but it's definitely strong tie-breaker.
OP, you should check out some of the responses from this thread I did years ago (https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/key-interview-takeaways-2nd-year…) - still pretty relevant I think
At my old bank, immediately after interviewing all the candidates at a superday, all the interviewers meet in a room and we decide right then and there who gets an offer, who doesn't, and then sometimes set aside a few candidates as backups.
Usually start w/ everyone reading off their forced rankings (people literally went 1 by 1 around the table listing off their like 1-8 ranking or whatever, with HR writing down everyone's responses and adding up the scores) to help first filter out who we thought for sure / shouldn't get an offer (not much discussion here needed, unless people disagreed strongly on a certain candidate - e.g. everyone loved a candidate but then they bombed even the most basic of technicals) and then debate goes around for people who are less obvious. Generally people wanted to hear how candidates did on technicals first - then people would bounce discussions back and forth, including discussion on who wants (or doesn't want) which candidates in their groups if they have strong feelings about that. Have times where a lot of people are like "meh, passable but don't love" a candidate, and then maybe an MD will be like "I loved the guy / girl - stick them in my group if we give out an offer."
Overall, what somebody said above about this not being rocket science definitely holds true.
Voluptatibus eius et dolorem aut corporis similique vel in. Et quia facere necessitatibus itaque molestias repudiandae minima quo. Qui architecto repudiandae ad.
Et commodi qui voluptatem atque. Ad rerum voluptatum harum aperiam quibusdam pariatur aut. Ipsum reprehenderit aspernatur iure aliquam. Sit rerum voluptatem officiis sit unde iure.
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...