Luck vs coping (London Spring/SA)
How much of it is really luck? Or are people just coping / not talented enough / do not know how to write their CV / do not perform well in interviews?
After observing this year's spring week application cycle, it is really hard to tell what the selection criteria is. Some people who get many offers have a ton of finance experience, while others have no finance exp but more extracurriculars. Many talented people just don't get past CV screening. Is it the same for SA? And what about interviews, is it also down to luck? Many interviews go well but candidates never hear back, so what does it come down to?
The selection process for London Spring Weeks and Summer Analyst (SA) roles is a mix of factors, and while luck plays a role, it's not the sole determinant. Here's a breakdown based on the most helpful WSO content:
Luck vs. Talent:
CV Screening:
Interviews:
Spring Weeks vs. SA:
Key Takeaways:
Ultimately, the process is a mix of preparation, performance, and yes, a bit of luck. But by focusing on what you can control, you can significantly improve your odds.
Sources: Advice for London applicants, 20 Most Frequently Asked Questions - London Edition, 20 Most Frequently Asked Questions - London Edition, Advice for London 2022 Applications Cycle - A Couple of Observations, London - Roadmap to FT and SA Hiring
del
This is very validating to hear as I also come from a target and have had a similar experience so far. Do you have an opinion on why this may be? I have a theory but I'm not sure how much it makes sense. Since there are too many qualified candidates, they all look the same on paper (high GPA, internships, extracurriculars), and it becomes quite random because there is no way to stand out. In that case, I heard that going to networking events may help with getting fast-tracked, or sometimes I noticed that candidates with more unconventional backgrounds (non-finance undergraduate, more unique experiences) stand out more and can be more successful than those with the perfect finance internships. Finally, if it is truly this random, why do you think there is a common opinion that candidates at more prestigious banks are more talented?
i think this is good and bad: since it is so HR driven it maintains its impartialness but significantly increased its randomness
Back during my analyst days I reviewed a bunch of Spring, SA, FT applications/CVs - the truth is that there’s a huge amount of randomness in the process
Just to give you a sense of how things were run back in my days, though I’m sure it’s probably different now - I’d get a big stack of CVs and cover letters (maybe 80-100) from HR and I’d be asked to go through and pick out a handful that I think are interesting. I had my own criteria on what I think is interesting, but given there’s no fixed criteria or guidance from HR, there’s a huge amount of variance and judgment, e.g. I’ve seen some analysts have biases for people who went to their school or are from where they are from etc. (some also have negative biases against the same as well). HR would then go through our selection and typically invite all the ones we’ve flagged for first round interviews, but they have also missed people (in my experience mostly because sometimes CVs go missing or they missed that we marked it for whatever reason)
I’m sure you’ll be interested in what people specifically looked for to have CVs pulled out, but again it can be hugely random. Just speaking for myself when reviewing Springs, given how young the applicants typically are you don’t really have a lot to go off. I personally scanned for good schools (and if not a good school, good grades to compensate, would even look at A Level / IB grades for reference), and then interesting extracurricular that shows you have an interest in finance, or internships or work experience that indicates you’d be able to work in a professional environment. Also if you put down a weird/unique interest, I’d also remember and probably ask you in an interview. I think of it as a check list where I look broadly for intelligence and interest in the job but would look to multiple parts of the CV to evidence it, e.g. “oh this kid went to some semi/non-target school, so let me check if they have other internships that can show they actually want to do this OR they went to a really under represented sixth form and maybe going to this university already shows huge initiative for them so this is then a partial check”. If someone is on the edge, I’d sometimes read through their cover letter. Poor writing/spelling, bad formatting, wrong firms are also automatic dings - you have to at least give enough of a crap to do the basics.
But also because it’s a spring, I’ve also put through candidates that I think wouldn’t typically make the cut because I think their background shows promise (though unconventional). I view Springs as a great tool for people to explore a career in finance without committing to it, plus it’s also just a first round interview so like 30 minute call with some analyst, so why not put through more people. I’m sure some of the Oxbridge/HEC/Bocconi boys will be able to get a summer without a spring so sometimes when I see these applicants it would have to be basically perfect for me to put them through.
FWIW, not everyone puts this much thought into these. Some analysts also just pick randomly or sometimes don’t go through their pile of CV at all because they’re busy or whatever else. Sometimes those CVs get reallocated to someone else on the floor but sometimes not.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. You mentioned you used to typically look for things such as going to a good school and having finance-related internships or extracurriculars. However, I go to one of the universities you mentioned and know many students with great high school grades, previous finance internships, and finance clubs on their CV, but they never get past CV screening (did not receive a single interview invite for spring weeks). (I don't think it's the OA since usually we would get automatically dinged if we don't pass the minimum threshold score.) Do you think that standards may have changed since then, or things have simply become more competitive? And even for summers, I know many students with the perfect GPA, interships and extracurriculars who do not get to first round. Is it because their profiles are too similar, so it's hard to stand out? Has it happened before that you had a stack of CVs where almost everyone fit the criteria you described, and how did you choose in that case?
Hey buddy - I know you’re trying to look for some reasons to help rationalise what I’m guessing was a disappointing recruitment cycle but the process is inherently random and irrational. For every person you can think of that has the “perfect profile” that didn’t get offers, you also have friends who did get first rounds I would think? Unless no one in your circle got anything. Also, I’ve never had a stack where everyone fits the criteria. I’d say I’d probably put through 20% of CVs that I see, of which only 5%-10% is probably “perfect” and the other 10-15% have some shortcomings but are interesting to me for some reason. I don’t think there’s some grand conspiracy for why some people are not getting through.
All I can say is, if you’re at Oxford/Cambridge you’ll always get a fair shot - which is all you can really ask for. There’s a lot of sameness in the profile and the reality is that you are all qualified to do the job, especially at the analyst level. It’s a super competitive industry with a ton of applicants for a finite number of slots, even for the top candidates that I assume you are. All you can do is to make sure that when you do get to an interview stage that you are as prepared as possible (networking does help by the way, being able to put a face to the name makes a huge difference but if you come across as a weirdo it’s all over).
Spring week recruiting is very heavy with DEI initiatives. And it selects a lot of UK applicants from non-target universities. But most of the UK students attending target get at least 1~2 decent offers.
As someone alluded to, a large part of the issue is that a lot of the people assessing you are given no guidance on how to assess you so they make up their own criteria. It's possible to be top rated by one interviewer and not for another for completely different reasons.
Soluta odio quia harum ut est aut. Beatae sed perferendis cupiditate consequatur. Saepe aut distinctio autem reprehenderit in quidem autem. Ullam dolorem laborum recusandae quisquam facere saepe veniam molestiae.
Eum qui totam et. Aperiam ut sint est aut eaque. Corporis asperiores facilis esse voluptas sed sed facilis. Sunt dolor ea expedita dignissimos. Officiis voluptatem illo est velit quaerat.
Hic ratione minima amet adipisci. Ea omnis perspiciatis non aperiam ut.
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...