Thoughts as a Summer Analyst Interviewer - London BB

So I've been conducting 1st and 2nd round interviews for the spring and summer analyst programs at my bank (BB in London) for several years now and basically I thought I'd share some general thoughts any other insights I can think of. I don't think what I'm saying is necessarily revolutionary but sometimes the consolidation of information is as useful as the quantity/quality of it. 

These are of course my views and may differ from how others think about interviewing.

I'd say on the scale of "lets anyone through" to "expectations are on the moon", I'm in the middle, if that helps.

Things candidates may not realise:

• Not many FTers like doing interviews. We're tired and we're handed these things by HR, and unfortunately part of our YE review process pertains to us "helping out the bank" so we kinda have to do something every now and then. Why does this matter? Frankly speaking, your outcome can somewhat depend on the mood of the person interviewing you, even if they try to be objective. This of course applies more to you if you're a middle-of-the-road candidate, rather than a clear superstar.
• We don't get much training on how to conduct interviews or really what to look out for even. Apart from a few vague competencies and a general line of questioning, we're basically given free reign to determine what makes a "great candidate" and a "bad candidate". Different people's ideas of that are VASTLY different - in terms of what competencies they deem as "non-negotiable" and the threshold level of those competencies. Some analysts will put through 10/20 interviewees and some will put through 2/20. Some people (probably more than you think) interview purely on vibe. The only way to hedge against this is to really just hit every mark - vibe, technicals, commercial awareness, motivation, clarity of answers, enthusiasm etc.
• Some people are just dicks and there's really no control mechanism against that. So, if you get rejected, sometimes it really isn't you, it's them.
• We do take your educational background into consideration when interviewing/assessing you. In early stage interviewing, I'm going to expect someone studying economics to know a little bit more about yknow... macroeconomics, than like someone doing Spanish at Oxford or whatever. There is still a minimum threshold of knowledge for both but I'm probably going to be *slightly* more critical of the economics guy when asking certain questions. Why? Because if you're in that environment and you're not paying attention to knowledge around you that'll help in your chosen career, then that doesn't speak very well to your enthusiasm/potential to learn other things. This also applies if you have a lot of previous experience - I'm going to be less forgiving on your lack of knowledge. So in some ways, for me at least, there is a higher bar the better your CV is.
• I don't care where you went to school, or tbh what your grades are, once we're in the interview. Self explanatory.
• I try to be constructive with everyone, even if I'm probably not going to put you through. Basically what I'm trying to say is the vibe you have/get with your interviewer is not necessarily a good indicator of your success. Likewise, I don't necessarily give huge positive reinforcement to people who are doing well. That might just be me but I feel this explains a lot of the "unexpected" rejections some people get after interviews.

Things candidates often do wrong:

• They don't know what they're applying to or much about how the division they're applying to works. This is a no-no for obvious reasons. If I ask you why you want to work in the division and you can't really articulate to me that you understand what we do at least on a basic level, I'm just going to ding you. That's obvious but you would be so surprised how many people do not make this hurdle.
• They're robotic when they answer questions. If I hear no enthusiasm behind your voice when I ask you why you want to work in my division or really any other Q, it's not an immediate ding but it definitely doesn't start you out on the best footing. Nervously enthusiastic answers >>>> robotic answers. Try to smile when answering questions, it'll help.
• Not showing any intellectual curiosity. This might be a research-specific thing but we ask a few open-ended Qs where it's kind of up to the candidate how they answer the question - testing your creativity/critical thinking/logic. There's "no right way" to answer but there are usually a couple things we're looking for you to touch on. If you give me a two line basic response, and I have to pester you repeatedly to expand or explain your thinking, then I'm probably going to ding you because you are showing none of the competencies these questions are here to test. For me these are some of the most important questions because they're usually the only ones where you see a candidate think on their feet.
• They mention ESG in their answer to "why this bank?". I don't believe you. Unless you come to me with some sort of very commercial reason why you're really passionate about whether or not the bank plants 10,000 trees a year, I don't believe you. Find another fake reason to like our bank. Genuinely anything else is better. Except maybe those people who quote our financial statement numbers. That's weird - I don't give a shit, you don't give a shit, let's not do that.
• They talk down their answers. This is usually a confidence/nervousness thing but one of the worst things you can do is disqualify your own answer after giving it to me. Stuff like "answer, but I don't really know". If I think you're wrong, I'll probably challenge you and give you a chance to redeem yourself, no harm no foul. Additionally, if you really don't know, it's much better to say "from what i understand X, but I will go away and double check my thinking and get back to you".
• They give unstructured answers. LEARN THE STAR METHOD! IT'S THAT SIMPLE! It makes your answers 1000x easier to follow and that matters a lot because I'm tired and I'm probably only half paying attention. If I can't follow what you're saying, there's only a 50/50 chance I'm going to bother clarifying.
• They ramble. Slightly related to the above but this is more related to the length of your answers. Say what you have to say, try not to repeat yourself or go off on tangents. I've had to cut people off when they do this and it's not the best look. Also this often leads to people not actually answering the question at all because they tie themselves in knots.
• They don't give themselves time to think about their answer. Candidates will often just rush to answer a question as soon as I've asked it and those answers tend to be a lot worse, rambly, and unstructured than those who take 5-10 seconds to think about what they want to say. You can either just literally pause for 5 seconds, ask for 10 seconds to think, or give some filler line like "that's a great question". This obviously doesn't apply to hirevues, answer as fast as possible.

Add anything else below, and let me know if you agree/disagree.

And prospects, feel free to ask Qs.