The difference in MSF and MBA candidates
Have a friend at a semi target MBA, and another at a semi target MSF (I chose friends at semi targets for this Q for consistency)
Both have similar years of experience but the MBA has no experience relevant to IB/PE.
The MBA is recruiting for Associate roles, the MSF is recruiting for Analyst.
What I don’t get is why would firms be more receptive to an MBA with unrelated experience applying for an Associate role VS. the MSF with relevant experience for an Associate role. Especially since both are mid-20s with similar years of experience?
Wouldn’t the MSF coursework give a better understanding of the quantitative concepts? Paired with his previous deal experience, wouldn’t he be a better pick for Asso?
For a multitude of reasons, the MSFs just don’t carry the same weight
1. Supply and demand for analyst positions vs associate: there is a higher demand for associate positions than analyst positions. Since the MSFs just don’t carry the same weight as an MBA you’re in a trickier spot with a lot of luck needed to succeed. You also don’t have a formal recruiting pipeline with an MSF as it’s done in the undergrad level.
2. Unrelated experience doesn’t mean that it’s not helpful. Many think that MBAs shouldn’t be given associate 1 roles because they don’t have the “relevant experience”. You’re not factoring in professional maturity, leadership, and ability to succeed in a work place environment that they’ve demonstrated. All because someone at an analyst level recruiting with an MSF has a few internships that are relevant doesn’t mean they’re “experienced” enough. Experience is beyond modelling, and technicals: it’s understanding how to navigate work place politics, understand the scope of projects, and deliver which is what a lot of Gen Z seem to struggle at.
3. Going back to point number 1, MBA’s have a traditional pipeline to associate levels and will always have a role in IB recruitment for as long as exit opportunities outside of banking continue to exist. I assume you’re in the US, many people leave banking after two years to do something else. In other countries that may not be the case which is why an MBA somewhere else may not help you get your goal if that’s banking.
Thanks for the comment
Surprising to hear demand for Asso is higher than An. I would have expected that the number of undergrad aspirants outweigh the number of laterals and MBAs for associate recruiting.
Totally agree with your points. The strange part about this is that both have solid management and leadership experience, but even boutiques aren’t showing interest in my MSF friends efforts to recruit at Associate level.
Does the label of the degree have so much power that they ignore the candidates background?
All of this makes me glad I took the exit ramp
i believe hes saying demand from the bank's side and supply as the candidates
Yep exactly that. There is a shortage of “good” associates and associate-vps in the US because many senior analysts leave after finally earning their stripes to PE/Tech. That’s why the MBA pipeline exists. Banks just need associates since they can’t rely on their analyst class for A2A.
Officiis et delectus qui veritatis laboriosam ut. At cumque qui nulla itaque adipisci nostrum minus. Sed temporibus soluta velit at maiores eveniet. Autem sed eum qui sed nobis quia. Eveniet et deserunt ut facere cum quo quia quia. Aliquid saepe animi debitis odio ut hic.
Aut est et officia natus. Assumenda consequatur eos facilis aut accusamus voluptatum. Voluptatum harum voluptas aut esse quidem. Labore velit aut sunt praesentium odit.
Voluptas quia optio delectus adipisci. Nihil ab dolorem nam. Voluptatum beatae sed est dolor quae nostrum aut. Dolor laudantium sit qui quae cum 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...