Standardized Tests Are Needed For IB Recruitment
Going through IB recruitment, does anybody else think the process for recruitment is generally garbage? IB/ high finance level roles are the only field which is highly competitive and paid yet does not have a standardized test to complement recruitment efforts. Doctors take the MCAT, Lawyers take the LSAT, etc.
With so many good candidates and banks literally having less than a 0.1% acceptance rate now (these are at even low MM places, not even elite boutiques or BB), I believe this is warranted. These behavioral and culture fit questions dictate nothing at the end of the day and are just fillers so that there is some lead way for the CEO's son, a diversity hire or whatever nepotism reason candidate would get the role over you. The best you will get are some technical questions which are so basic and limited in scope that it leads to the same result. Even on the other side of resume picking when you get the full time role, it is nearly damn impossible to decide on who to give first round interviews for. So much so you start declining kids based on if their interests piss you off because there are too many kids with such great GPAs and experiences (plus you need to leave some room your MD's son).
A technical and standardized test would help solve this problem. It would make the process more "fair" and eliminate any bs excuse from not getting hired. It would also make the analysts job easier for when they spend hours scraping up resumes from the big pile. Would love to hear other people's thoughts on this but I just generally think there should be a test for this type of industry after seeing the acceptance rates at some of these banks and to some degree seeing the ones who get the job over qualified candidates who won't even get a look.
You want people who can get along with the team and the clients, not some sperg who just crammed for a multiple choice entrance exam.
indian mods are out of control
del
That’s not exactly my argument. Yes, you don’t exactly need to be the smartest kid to excel in investment banking. It’s more though for a recruitment standard. The process is so rigged because none of the recruitment is standardized which leads to people who shouldn’t be in these roles getting them as opposed to more qualified candidates. And obviously it would just be one component of many things (like the other standardized tests scores are for top level fields mentioned above).
Its a free market and your test scores are no longer valued as highly as they were in high school. The market doesn't think your test scores matter that much, those "unqualified students" you talk about are actually more desired than those "qualified candidates" with high test scores.
Process isn't rigged, its just that the attributes YOU value are not weighted as much in the market. Just because you value standardised test scores highly, doesn't mean firms or employers should.
TBF law school and med school don’t require crazy levels of intelligence either; just a decent chunk of studying.
I don’t necessarily disagree with OP in the sense that finance as a whole would benefit from people knowing what they are doing and knowing markets more holistically, and that a standardized test would be more ‘fair’ than getting a job because you networked or knew someone, but I do think that the ‘fit’ component is more important in this industry than others and therefore interview processes must be more arduous no matter what.
No - most applicants have the necessary intelligence to be a banker because banking isn’t for super smart people. You want the kid who can hold a conversation and eventually bring in money somewhere down the line, not the kid who studied all day but was too stupid to go into quant.
It’s already there (kind of) - banks recruit from mostly target/semi-target unis. In order to get in, you’d have a pretty high GPA/SAT
Beyond a good GPA idk what standardised level of knowledge is sought out in IB. Everything technical in IB is still basic and easily learnable. At senior levels it’s a sales job even. Totally incomparable to law and medicine
Cope. Front office roles are front office. They don't want shut-ins who can 1600 SAT but can't hold a conversation with people. Go be a quant if you can, i don't need an intern with this mindset.
I don’t want to work with a squid that didn’t have fun in college so they could study for an IB exam.
Sounds like recruiting isnt going your way and you feel like you are more qualified than others that have received your desired outcome? Hating both the player and the game is a tough way to live.
Unlike medicine or law, banking is a sales job. All the focus on early stage recruiting paints the wrong picture of every role VP and onwards.
There should absolutely not be a standardized test for IB. If anything they should shy away from relying on the standard interview questions and pick personable, hardworking people and teach them how to do the job.
There are standardized tests, if you can’t pass relatively easy FINRA exams then you get fired.
You let them know of your ACT/SAT only when asked.
Much easier to cheat on a standardized test than in an interview
They already do this in europoor countries. Look at comp and relative performance on deals and there’s your answer. Different market but if it were a good system we would already have done it that way in the US. IB is 90%+ sales / charisma. You can’t take a test that tells me you can get a great multiple selling a shitco to the 800lb gorilla who sees a million CIMs each year. It might work in London / Frankfurt because everyone seems to grind a masters + CFA + other bullshit before working a day in their life over there. That credential focus is just useless bureaucracy. Give me a motivated athlete over the academia maxxers who have been in school for the past twenty years but can’t tell me anything interesting about the market or a particular business model. School should have stuck to classics, history, philosophy, and the grand tour. Studying business is like watching porn instead of having sex.
It’s a different angle imho. If higher education was as affordable and accessible in the US as it is in most European countries I would bet this sort of academia maxxing would be very prevalent in US business schools (it already is, kind of, in different fields)
OP sounds like the kind of guy who wouldn’t worry about his wife’s boyfriend because he has a higher IQ
Firms should have an IQ test (115+), a pre-screening interview and then a networking dinner/event.
CVP in London has the closest thing to this.
All this nonsense about being ‘social’ is bullshit anyways in most processes - anyone can fake charisma.
I disagree. While I’m sure there is someone good at acting, most young kids in a pressure situation aren’t going to fake how they act. The mistakes we’ve made most in hiring analysts were sacrificing social skills for paper attributes (target school, high gpa/ test scores). Good analysts have enough social skills to work well in a team, use feedback and communicate effectively internally and externally.
While the interview standards across banks are not the same, they are similar enough to say that there is somewhat of a standard. Especially for more junior hires.
I’m confused at how much this forum harps soft skills and holding a conversation. I used to believe it as an undergrad but it’s not a hard or rare thing to do. After hitting the desk I feel like what makes or breaks people is endurance and not cracking under long hours.
Maybe if you guys changed your expectations people wouldn’t bitch so much about the job?
Disagree
Having run tens of interviews, I can tell you for sure that a technically strong interviewee has only limited chances of being a good junior banker
Ultimately, strong technicals out of university means only that much: access to top education (thx mommy & daddy) and a brain to go along with it - which by no means implies readiness to excel in the grind
Horrendously bad take here - culture and behavioral fit are massive factors in deciding who to give offers to (you spend more time with your coworkers than your own family / loved ones). No one wants to sit next to a soulless loser who makes your 80 hour weeks feel like 120 hours.
Another good point a previous commenter made - this business is client facing and being personable is huge as you will be communicating with / spending time with clients (you’re representing your bank).
Lastly, I’m unsure what every applicants obsession with the “technical side of the job” is. Being able to model doesn’t make you Superman, banks could teach monkeys to model and most the time you’re provided templates. Investment banks also spend millions of dollars a year in training programs to spoon feed the “technical aspects” of the job to new hires. Candidly speaking, the technical things we do are not that difficult and don’t require a 800 GMAT to figure out.
I can tell you I have met plenty of idiots that can score well on sat/gre,etc but aren't the brightest when it comes to solving problems.
If you are a qualified candidate, and you work hard, and know your technical knowledge cold, and have decent soft skills, the chance of you breaking into a given role is very high. After a certain age you'll realize prestige isn't everything, but you'll care about doing a role that you care about.
U dont need some nerd to ace tests. U need driven hard working people with a good attitude that’ll be sorted out through the screening/coffee chat/interview process.
Quia et voluptatibus ut et quae. Dolore vero sit dolores vel. Quo totam dolores reprehenderit dicta voluptas sed. Maiores quidem facilis quis. Ea fugiat sit excepturi id.
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...
Repellat perferendis minus ullam. Consequuntur id debitis reprehenderit illum dicta ut libero. Et aut et inventore beatae tempora aut.
Reiciendis voluptatem harum sunt et dolores. Et aperiam sequi dolore qui. Error aut dolorem iusto debitis ipsa. Nam magnam doloribus et quis sunt ut et. Error quis placeat et voluptate.
Aspernatur quia recusandae qui est mollitia nostrum. Nihil vero dolor doloremque reiciendis. Recusandae omnis hic explicabo a.
Reiciendis qui molestiae reprehenderit eum sunt esse est. Occaecati distinctio veritatis debitis sit iste culpa eveniet. Mollitia sit qui dolorem debitis est ad aliquam. Enim quam repellat est illum. Sint repudiandae suscipit sequi magnam hic magni. Voluptatem quos quis voluptates atque. Vitae veritatis quia pariatur.