Summer Internship Venting

Hi everyone,

I’m beginning to think that this line of work may not be for me. I’ve been sending out applications non-stop for a few weeks now, applying to around 90 places so far (CV, cover letter, assessments, HireVue). I know it’s still early days, and in the end, this is all a numbers game, but the process is incredibly demoralizing. I can't believe that after all this time, no one has come up with a better way to handle job applications.

CV:

1. Either your parents or relatives hold a good position at a firm, giving you the benefit of nepotism.
2. Or, you sacrificed your childhood to focus solely on preparing for a career. Most of us have one or two relevant experiences, but for the most part, it’s usually school-related or some part-time work in retail. Any valuable positions in university societies are only available from the second year onward, so most people won’t have gained much experience before summer internships start. Through hard work and some luck, I managed to secure a place at a top 4 target university in the UK (supposedly among the top 10 universities globally). However, none of this seems to matter—and honestly, it shouldn’t. Most people applying for internships likely attended a decent university and have solid grades.

Cover Letter:
If anyone thinks cover letters add real value to an application, they’re likely the same people who unquestioningly support archaic traditions. Realistically, no university student is particularly passionate about working at XYZ. We all aim for top firms because they offer the best compensation. Sure, some people may target specific companies because of industry focus or deal flow, but it’s reasonable to assume that most firms operate similarly or have comparable cultures in the same sector. If I’m applying to work somewhere, it’s because I’m genuinely interested in the opportunity. There’s no need to overpraise the company or myself. Plus, given the volume of applications and the likelihood of rejection, it’s recommended to spend no more than an hour researching a firm. Most applicants end up submitting similar cover letters, aside from the few who choose to invest more time tailoring theirs at the expense of applying elsewhere.

Assessments:
Aside from numerical and verbal reasoning, most of these assessments feel pointless. In fact, the real winners here are the private equity firms that own these test providers, charging banks large sums for these services. Situational and behavioral tests are mostly common sense. The danger is that people who excel at these tests might struggle in real-world scenarios because they’ve never actually experienced them. It’s like studying just enough to pass a test. It reminds me of some international students who prepare just enough English to pass IELTS but don’t bother learning more afterward, making it hard for them to integrate or participate in group work. How am I supposed to collaborate with someone who barely speaks English, skips lectures, and relies on translation services for all their reading material? Also, those logical pattern/shape tests—how does recognizing a pattern in shapes help in any meaningful way in these roles?
Before assumptions are made: yes, I’ve played the game. I can score in the 99th percentile in most of these tests through practice, not because I’m inherently smart.

A side note: Yes, you're technically not allowed to use AI or have external help during these tests, but the reality is that many people are likely doing just that. The only way to prevent this, which I’ve only seen once, is by recording applicants while they complete the test.

HireVue:
I understand the need to ensure candidates can present themselves well on camera, but this is not the right way to assess that. Some people are naturally talented and confident, breezing through this stage. Others may have prepared so much that their responses are memorized, which doesn’t make for a genuine interview. Furthermore, some of the questions asked are absurd. Why do I want to work at XYZ? How would I approach adopting a new method? These are hollow, generic questions. Experience teaches you how to handle these situations, and I find it hard to believe my response to such a superficial question will truly reflect my abilities.

Overall:
This whole process feels broken.

Realistically, companies are looking for someone reliable, willing to stay late to finish work, and comfortable sacrificing a social life in favor of professional obligations. Yes, the pay is good, but at the end of the day, you’re essentially trading your freedom for compensation. The honesty is lacking—everyone knows the work-life balance is poor, so why try to sugarcoat it? And why act like anyone genuinely cares about diversity initiatives or the "warm, close-knit community" the company supposedly offers?

People should be hired based on merit, not because they interned at their father’s firm when they were 18. If companies can’t create a more meritocratic process, they might as well resort to a lottery system, assuming every applicant is equally capable and willing to work there.

The process could be as simple as:
Random draw → Assessment center → Offer.