Recently got the opportunity to talk with the head of banking at a solid MM firm (think William Blair). He said that he hates hiring 3.9+ GPA candidates and actually sees it as a red flag.
His reasoning was that they lack social skills, have never experienced failure, etc.. I want to hear peoples' thoughts on this. Clarification: I'm assuming that he meant 3.9+ at a respectable/target school
| +186 | Ideal College/Recruiting Timeline | 38 | 2d | |
| +133 | Military Officer vs. IB analyst | 47 | 5h | |
| +75 | Lied on CV? | 60 | 7h | |
| +28 | Is there a point to networking if you have (nepo)? | 8 | 3h | |
| Got fired after 1.5 years as an Analyst, want to stay in Banking but I am confused | 10 | 1d | ||
| +23 | Are Single Managers Just Not Hiring? | 10 | 5d | |
| +23 | How do I go about explaining huge gaps in a CV for Spring & Summers? | 11 | 2d | |
| +21 | IB > PE, except burned out. What now? | 8 | 17h | |
| +21 | Recruiting is messed up and I'm not doing this.... | 19 | 1h | |
| +18 | Laid off, what next? | 8 | 5d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Not surprising. Most kids on this website think a 4.0 at an Ivy is the holy grail, and mock the kids who go to a state school and enjoy all aspects of college life. In reality, bankers want to hire kids that are smart AND fun to get along with. And unfortunately, no amount of studying will guarantee a good personality.
Without a doubt. I got a SA offer at one of the best Energy IBs in Houston after a super day of all fit and behavioral questions. No technical knowledge was displayed. They just saw my GPA was great (Not 4.0) and was in the undergrad business school. They didn't care how much technical knowledge I had. They just wanted someone to work with who would really fit in with the culture.
was this evercore by any chance?
Agree with this. Once you have used your university's prestige to open the door it comes down to a lot of behavioral stuff. Know someone that made it to a lot of superdays and didn't get an offer. Probably not technical issues since they made it to so many superdays.
Gotta think of it this way... if you're working 80 - 90 hour weeks regularly you really don't have much time out of work. A lot of analyst classes get close to one another (I'm not in IB and even so with lighter work weeks my analyst class is friends with eachother). Nobody wants to hire and spend 90 hours a week with someone they don't get along with.
The guy's an idiot.
Yeah that guy's an idiot. Who says you can't both have a high GPA and be a regular, social person?
Agreed, he made a stupid generalization because the guys is lazy & an idiot
Who says you actually understand the context in which the guy said it? Yeah he might've meant it. But he could've also been hinting at the OP specifically. He could've been saying, "show me that you're not boring".
Maybe, but one of the highlighted points was "have never experienced failure", so I dunno
Many people who have 4.0s have sacrificed a lot of the "college-experience" to get it. THAT's a big failure/regret, if you asked me.
-A near 4.0 student
Aren't you the kid who didn't know what a derivative was?
No lie, I had a career counselor tell me that having a 4.0 is BAD because it means you're a perfectionist, and perfectionists are annoying to work with.
Uh, experience says so.....
Yeah that's just dumb - with grade inflation rampant these days it's really not that difficult to get a 3.9+ GPA if you're smart enough to choose the right classes
I think it depends on the banks, but not because of social skills. Some smaller places top cut candidates because a 3.9 from a target isn’t likely to accept an offer and they don’t want to waste resources interviewing them, but the top banks and groups generally want the highest caliber people. If you’re incompetent socially then it’ll come across in the interviews.
Bruh. u really had to make Blair look bad :/? Couldn't u have said (Think Robert Baird)
im assuming he meant a 3.9 and do nothing else = bad, which is a very common theme in banking. but if that GPA is accompanied with greek life, sports, or any type of normal extracurricular ( non-finance club). i think that gives off a sense of normality
I agree... all else constant, a higher GPA is better than a low GPA. I don't see any logical reason for this to be otherwise. But it's probably best to have a 3.7 and some internships than a 5.0 and literally nothing else. But that being said, I can't see how in any circumstance, below a 3.0 is in any-way good
Thank you for this high-value insight
i guess that guy is looking for a friend rather a rockstar deal team
Sure, but the kids from target schools with 3.9+ GPA's aren't doing MM IB...they're doing restructuring/m&a at top shops or going straight to HF/PE.
From my experience (and I've done my fair share of recruiting), the kids with 3.9+ GPA really fall into one of 2 extremes. Either they have the total package (ie. extremely smart, but also outgoing, social, etc) and will be in extremely high demand and end up directly on the buyside or at least at GS/MS/JPM or a top EB. Or they did nothing but study and it's clear within 45 seconds of the interview starting that they have zero EQ or social skills, won't be able to work effectively in a team and you're wasting your time. There's a surprising number of people in the 2nd group.
From the perspective of a MM, they are too far down the pecking order so they are not getting anyone from the first group so it kind of make sense not to waste time on the second group.
Jeez, you really hit the nail on the head in your analysis, I think.
yeah, I was very confused when I first heard it, but your analysis makes sense. SB'd
Nailed it.
Yeah because the 4 extras Bs that the kid with a 3.7 GPA got really taught him how to handle adversity, what an idiot.
"Tell me about a difficult time in your life" "I experienced the lowest of lows in undergrad by achieving 5 Bs throughout my career. My 3.7 GPA is proof that I have seen the depths of hell that is failure"
Last time I checked a sub 3.0 GPA was bad, 3.0-3.5 was meh/start networking, 3.5+ was good, and a 3.9 was fantastic.
ehh 3.9 means start networking
Always be networking
What is a 3.9 GPA in %? I am looking to convert my GPA to the 4.0 scale and I find drastically different values everywhere
Funny thing is, I read an article recently saying that at some very quality schools, the average is as high as a 3.5, so the guy's not just pulling this out of his ass. People are all gunning for high GPAs, meaning it's not as unique anymore.
This is true and I completely understand the context in which the guy said what he said. It's been my experience that younger guys and gals on the desk with 3.9+ GPAs tend to typically have lower EQ / soft skills and are harder to work alongside of because they're boring robots that lack people skills. That being said, I've also seen some rockstar people come in with GPAs through the roof and great social skills, it really just depends on the person.
Edit: I'm predicting at least 5 monkey shits on this comment from kids who have blank resumes, the personality of a single-scoop of vanilla in a bowl, with 4.0 GPAs that thought making good grades would land them a job as a banker.
That's interesting. The profiles of MOST people who work in IB come from very good, wealthy backgrounds. I'm not sure what he means by "experiencing failure."
i mean if you're non-target a 3.9 is much more important to have
He is 100% right.
Kids with 4.0's are great for the analyst program, because it requires no social skills and pure technical ability will make you successful. However, these kids will never make successful MD's or rainmakers, where social skills and relatability are the name of the game.
You can have both you know, right? I have no idea why this stereotype of "good grades so must be weird" persists past high school. I know just as many people who are dynamic and interesting and crushed it in an academic setting as I do those who sucked in school. In fact, the higher-achievers tend to be more relatable because they're better read/cultured, have better memories (which is an important skill when building relationships with dozens of people at a time) and are more confident in what they're saying.
Sorry you did poorly in undergrad despite it being hilariously easy :(
Nobody here is claiming that every single kid with a high GPA out of undergrad is "weird" or anything like that. We're (and at least I am) trying to say that a kid with only a high GPA and not much else to show from undergrad tends to be a bit more rigid in social situations and thus probably won't make a good banker or trader (again not a definitive statement, just what I've noticed over time).
Edit: By "trader" I meant anything high-touch.
Clearly this touched you on a personal level (I wonder why).
This is not personal for me. I'm simply stating that in my experience those with a 3.9+ are not the most social people, and are often a bit awkward. People with 3.0 - 3.7 with great social skills are much more common to find.
Can confirm this guy is an idiot. Having a high GPA is a base requirement. Not sure why it would automatically mean you "lack social skills and never experienced failure".
not dinging anyone with high gpas--i know kids with them that have social skills. however, with competition for wall st and tech being so high, social skills put you over the edge. at least for the roles where you don't need to be innovative, you work long hours with people, and banks want to retain you into leadership roles. i was told by the MD that interviewed me for my SA s&t BB gig that my personality and story were what set me apart from the crowd and made me not only an offer, but told me I was an "obvious choice" and "head and shoulders above the rest." my gpa isn't stellar (it was a 3.6 from a semi-target (UVA/UMich/UNC/UCB-esque at the time)) and i had no (real) technicals and no significant demonstrated interest in finance with clubs or past internships
You know they tell you those things so you'll feel special and accept, right
i thought that was the case, but i spoke to other people offered from our superday and they didn't get that feedback. additionally, i do have a very unique story (family lost home in the recession/auto bailout fallout) and I have stayed in touch with the MD's that interviewed me. one even took me to coffee last time i was in the city, and he isn't even going to be within my rotation next summer.
Lol
I mean.. if you LinkedIn search mega fund associates/VPs/etc., most of them graduated magna/summa cum laude. Lazy folks with average GPAs and good social skills might thrive in banking, but the buyside sounds more suiting for overachievers. Especially since LPs look at your investment track record to determine whether or not investing in your fund. Shotgunning beers and partying 5/7 days out of the week in college may allow you to carry a more interesting conversation, but it sure as hell doesn't teach you how to think like an investor.. haha
At Harvard, he quipped, the A students tend to become professors and the C students become wealthy donors." - WSJ quoting Larry Summers
So overachievers at H/W go to the buy-side?
Shit on me all you want. I didn't say it; the former president of Harvard did - not to mention that he was Treasury Secretary and Chief Economist of the World Bank. C students for the win!
I would love to see that 3.0 GPA that achieve more than a 4.0 GPA. I mean lets be honest you can get in with your social skills but the 4.0 even if don't get in still can create his own firm, be independent because he is that smart . If you can't achieve a high GPA in college, manage your work how will you present result in the workplace by being social?
Good luck being a perpetual cubicle dweller!
I think many of you missed what this guy meant. Is he auto dinging anyone with a 3.9? No. Are there 3.9s who encompass what this guy is looking for in a candidate? Obviously. But, what this guy is saying, and what many of you will learn as you get some years of work experience, is that the world is not a meritocracy. The smartest and brightest don't rise to the top- those who are good enough at their jobs, are sociable, and are able to politically maneuver through an organization do. What this guy is saying is that he will take a 3.6 (arbitrary number) who is sociable and able to hold a conversation over an awkward 3.9. Obviously there are sociable 3.9s, as anyone who has worked in banking can tell.
I don’t agree with the guy’s thesis, and yet, some of the responses here seem to support it
I've heard this attitude before - it's just as stupid now as it was then.
Obviously you need social skills and no one will argue that.
yeah brah
This is really about preventing 3.0s GPA going into depression when 4.0s systematically get the job. This guy would not get a very high score at the GMAT Critical Reasoning Section...
Want to establish my bona fides here with the majority of posters by acknowledging at the outset that there are tons of 3.9s with good social skills etc. I think the argument that good grades correlates with "would not sit on a plane with them for 14 hours" is stupid.
But to play devil's advocate to the majority of this thread - I think the guy's point is that GPAs are only one factor in a holistic process, and that focusing on maximizing candidate GPAs to the exclusion of all other factors is a misstep on the bank's part. The reason he gave is the "lack of experience with adversity" (which I don't think is entirely untrue), but there are others.
There is a selection bias on these forums and in this industry for people who went to the right schools, got good grades, and none of my post is supposed to take any of those accomplishments away from you. But this guy has a point - and it's that the industry has become extremely rigid in its hiring practices (only in the past few decades), in a way that isn't necessarily great.
When my parents joined banking ~40 years ago, major banks (that today require 4.0s from LSE to interview) specifically targeted high school dropouts for their Asia trading program, because they knew these kids were hungry and without an attachment in the world. You could send them off to Hong Kong, work them on the trading floor, and it was profitable because they kicked ass.
Back in the 1900s, the guy who saved Goldman and made it what it is today was a middle school dropout.
Today, if you walk into an informational interview with middling grades and a middling alma mater, you may well be cursed at and abused just for the amusement of the interviewers, and then unceremoniously kicked out like a leper. I personally have been laughed at and told to take a hike because I was not summa from Wharton - and this was at a middle market bank that had no business pretending it was that blue-blood. One where I had been recommended by an MD, nonetheless.
What changed in the meantime? Did banks suddenly realize they profited more, and did better deals, under the stewardship of 4.0's from the ivies? I don't think so - more likely, as finance became obscenely profitable in the latter half of the 20th century, high-status individuals with the right pedigrees (educational and otherwise) flocked to the industry, dominated it, and remade it in their image.
My issue here is precisely the tendency to paint candidates with a broad and one-dimensional brush. I think you are equally guilty of it whether you are purposefully discriminating against 3.9's or against 3.0s. But let's be honest folks - there are a ton of deserving kids with middling grades who would make fantastic bankers, and tons of kids with amazing grades who make awful bankers, and the world tends to favor the latter nonetheless. As another poster said before, the world is unfortunately not a meritocracy - this banker is just pointing out (refreshingly, imo) that he understands there is something more to a person than the number some professors gave them at one point in their life.
I would agree for the most part. But, I have worked with people with low 3s (like 3.0, 3.1, 3.2) and feel that it is evident. They aren't learning as quickly. I have to spend more time teaching them. Excel models and formatting always slightly off. Its a pain in the ass.
Did you actually get laughed at and told to take a hike because you were not summa from Wharton? Or was that just an exaggeration...?
He's making a correlative assumption and the question regards how much of that ostensible correlation is legitimate. The "tier 1" kids, like others have mentioned, typically are both great on paper and in person (great gpa, good school, sociable/likable) and as a result, typically end up at a GS/MS/EB/buyside.
At a MM the spread widens; like someone else mentioned, since MM banks are less demanded than the aforementioned 'top' groups, you won't see the "tier 1" kids to begin with, and so you end up with more incomplete 3.9+ (not as likable/social, interview worse) and the other end of the spectrum (average gpa from state school but likable and interviews well). I don't blame him - it's availability bias at its finest, but I hope the logic makes sense to him.
The guy probably never got a 3.9+ GPA in college and is just being sour about it.
"this" / "+1" / "agree" / "can confirm"
Agree with most people here. Guy is full of hot air. Not a real phenomenon. Personally, I have seen zero correlation b/w GPA and sociability. Some of the most social, engaging people I know have 3.9+ GPAs
.
This entire thread reminds me of the reddit Askreddit's where some guy asks whether or not girls care about size and the most upvoted answers are "of course not, I dated a guy with a 9 inch penis who was a terrible lover and a guy with a 4 inch penis who was amazing in bed. Small penises FTW because guys with big penises just don't know how to do other things!" bc everyone wants to be validated.
The answer is get the best GPA you can because it is super important to banking, to PE, to business school and beyond. Having great grades and being personable is not mutually exclusive
A aut laborum id perferendis illum. Delectus culpa adipisci facilis consequatur. Qui aut dolores totam ea voluptates quos odio.
Vero quia sit ducimus maiores modi quo nisi. Quos ut quasi illum.
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...
Qui veniam non qui voluptas quas. Fugit quasi hic sit cupiditate quo laudantium. Non voluptas et sequi sint.
Consequatur quaerat illo harum vero ut. Eligendi id et et vel ipsam eos recusandae quod. Et qui inventore ut eius tempora non.
Doloremque praesentium atque fuga qui eligendi sit non. Fuga et dolor culpa. Autem officiis cumque tempora omnis libero omnis reiciendis ut. Soluta doloribus saepe libero sed quos voluptatem. Eum consequatur repellendus quaerat excepturi nemo.
Itaque nam non maiores. Odit quo et velit non nesciunt voluptas. At incidunt perspiciatis sit veritatis.
Expedita omnis rerum minima deserunt possimus. Laborum non et ea rerum. Et nam quas recusandae quia nesciunt at quas. Occaecati quia qui velit accusamus.
Quibusdam nobis cumque autem occaecati consequatur aut et. Neque similique deleniti necessitatibus molestiae assumenda. Voluptas et exercitationem enim iure. Accusamus earum sequi sint rerum.
Est sed minus nihil nihil neque provident. Maiores voluptas aliquam et minus dolore amet eveniet. Explicabo sunt officia doloremque enim voluptatem saepe accusantium. Et sint cum est.
Odio pariatur quia et consequatur mollitia quia eius. Ut aut ex accusantium dolor vel. Et est sint ipsum sint inventore enim sit. Et impedit est laudantium asperiores cumque sint esse.
Eveniet sint alias sapiente odit beatae. Odio architecto dolores qui qui. Deleniti nihil rem cum ea et eos accusamus. Praesentium ab nihil consequatur dolores sed. Omnis sequi nesciunt laboriosam ut aspernatur aut eligendi. Rerum et ab eum et alias aut reprehenderit.
Amet ducimus nihil magnam possimus numquam aliquid sit consequuntur. Incidunt sunt dolorum autem. Neque sed aut sequi dolorem deserunt.
Impedit non nemo veniam iusto occaecati aut sit quas. Ut ab excepturi consequatur eaque sed cupiditate. Necessitatibus dolore quod similique aperiam et facere natus dolorem. Enim amet consequatur id nulla assumenda ipsa. Molestiae quo ut magnam tenetur.