I feel like the standard recruiting process for most students/graduates is to apply for 30-60 SA/FT positions. Maybe out of 60 total applications, half of them make to first round, which results in maybe 5-7 SPDs/ACs later on. Within the SPD or AC you'd expect 2-4 interviews and if you get past the AC some have a final round interview with the company's MD or something like that.
It's no surprise that everyone hates applications because each individual application can take up to 2 hours (why submit a CV when you have to end up filling up specific work history in a company's website all over again??). There are several rounds of interviews which is also extremely tiring, but from a recruiters standpoint it is necessary because they are trying to find out if you are full of shit or actually a legit candidate.
Here is where I get confused: since most firms in financial services have pretty much identical recruitment processes, why is it normal expect only 1-3 offers out of all the applications you make?? Let's say you applied to all the BBs and while you get rejected by MS/JPM, GS extends an offer to you. That offer, through the extensive recruitment process more or less proves that you are to a certain degree, not full of shit and have some merit or "skill"
But if you truly are a "skilled" candidate, shouldn't you have gotten more offers from all the firms you applied to?
Maybe in US candidates differentiate themselves through networking, but that practice is less in emea/apac. Like wtf?? I make pretty much the same applications to all firms but I get first/ second rounds from some while others ghost me for 2 months and reject me afterwards. It just makes no sense to me how you could get an offer from one firm but not their direct competitor when they more or less require the same skillsets and personality traits (assuming you applied for same division).
Oh my sweet summer child