Hi Everyone, I’ve lurked on this site for a long time and it’s been extremely helpful at different points in my career. I’m interested in giving back via Q&A thread as I’ve seen others do over the years.
Quick background
- Graduated from one of the top liberal arts schools
- Spent 2 years as an analyst at GS/MS at one of the top groups (think GS TMT/MS M&A)
- Have spent the past few years as a private equity associate at a megafund
- Will be attending HBS/GSB in the fall
WSO Mentors
Will answer questions on any topic to the best of my ability. Fire away. If you want a 1-on-1 session through the WSO Mentor program? Here's my mentor profile - click here.
How tall are you?
go ephs
Short answer is that it’s not that important. Going to a lesser-known school will not actively work against you while working as an analyst or in the PE recruiting process. That being said, those coming from target schools have built-in advantages that come with the network.
When you’re actually working as an analyst at one of these groups, where you went to school matters very little after 1-2 months. Analysts from target schools will feel more comfortable at first asking their older counterparts questions related to practical knowledge, recruiting, etc. They might also have an easier time establishing a good reputation via word of mouth - i.e. a second-year will mention that someone is smart and easy to work with based on their experience in undergrad. Generally though, it’s assumed that you’re smart and able to learn until you give people a reason to think otherwise - everyone is given the benefit of the doubt. Over time, your performance will have the biggest impact on your reputation and therefore the kind of experience you’ll have.
In PE recruiting, you’ll be given every chance to earn a spot regardless of where you went to school if you come from one of those groups (and MS/GS in general). Those coming from target schools can differentiate themselves prior to the interview process starting by actively networking with alums at different funds. But, again, where you went to school will not immediately place you at a disadvantage.
There are some who believe that not having a target school on your resume will give you fewer chances to screw up - either on the job or in an interview - before people begin to think negatively of you. I can see how this confirmation bias would play out, but I haven’t seen this in my experience.
tell me your fears so i may feed on them
How do you feel about your experience in banking? Would it have made sense to start right away in PE as an analyst or did you see tangible benefits from your time in banking?
Second, what next? You've basically achieved the best so far, but how do you think about the lifestyle tradeoff and the various opportunities beyond banking/PE after your time in B-school?
Thanks for the questions.
You've said several times here that you want to go into growth or late-stage VC.
My questions:
Why would you move away from tradition buyouts to growth and VC?
In your view and from networking with people in the industry, what does the day-to-day and compensation look like in growth compared to PE?
What type of firms will you be targeting? KKR TMT Growth, TPG Growth, Warburg, Apax, Summit, Insight Venture Partners? Am I in the right ballpark?
Don’t plan to stay in PE, but would like to stay in investing as I’ve mentioned elsewhere.
I liked PE better than IB, though there are aspects of both jobs that I enjoyed. There are also things about both roles that I didn’t really care for.
What I enjoyed about IB was the team-based environment/working style, the camaraderie amongst junior bankers, the emphasis on mentorship and career development, and the variety of clients/projects. I didn’t particularly enjoy the demanding clients, the hours, and the relative lack of depth in the work/analysis (only realized this after I got to PE though).
What I really enjoy about PE, and investing generally, is the intellectual aspect - you have the opportunity to learn about an industry, map out the key players, create a thesis, and execute on that thesis by identifying attractive opportunities and pursuing them. And you really have so many resources to draw upon when doing all of this research. Over the course of a deal, you’re solely focused on doing everything you can to understand every detail about a company before synthesizing it into a coherent argument that you then have to defend at investment committee (or justify passing on the opportunity). So you end up learning a lot in a short amount of time. Things can feel a bit repetitive at times from a process perspective at the associate level, but, in my mind, this is more than made up for by the quality of learning opportunities.
The one thing I do miss about banking is the team dynamic. When things got busy, it felt like everyone was pulling in the same direction which could make otherwise miserable experiences pretty tolerable. By comparison, I’ve found the buyside to be a bit more solitary which can be a drag at times.
What's the story you pitch to b-schools? They must get literally hundreds of applicants just like you, talking about the same types of deals and with similar pedigree and work experience ... how on earth do you stick out? These jobs don't even leave room for extracurriculars.
Not OP. At least historically, you stick out because there's only HBS Dean of Admissions) used to literally come into the Blackstone offices every year to chat with the Associates. Check the class sizes at these schools and it's easy to see how they get in. Much, much easier to get in from a MF than a no-name PE firm.
Apparently, things are changing and H/S now ding more MF guys, which is very problematic as they hope that the MFs continue to recruit at their schools. Anyone with this background will at least get into Wharton, as anyone with this pedigree went to a (semi) target, got good grades, can easily crush GMAT. But this is irrelevant as essentially noone at a top MF will want to go to Wharton (H/S or bust) Maybe if you come off as super arrogant you'll get dinged from H/S nowadays, but back 4-5 years ago I know that essentially all Apollo/Blackstone/KKR Associates got into H or S.
Edit: More direct response in case that wasn't super clear -- hire an admissions consultant (you have plenty of cash to do so) to say you want to do entrepreneurship / impact investing / save the whales / help people in Africa...
And expectations of extracurriculars are less since they know your hours are brutal. Join a board of a small non-profit one year before applying, dial in to meetings once in a while, and write about how it supposedly changed your life.
All this info is googleable, not sure why this thread is clamoring for the answer so badly
So I think a lot of what monkey_brah said is true. There’s a small number of people with BB+MF backgrounds, and from that group only a fraction (even if it is a large fraction) want to go to b school. It’s a self-selecting group, and most everyone from that group will have the qualifications (school, stats, etc.) to get noticed and therefore get in, which also allowed them to get the jobs they’ve had, etc. There’s a snowball effect there. As monkey_brah also alluded to in describing how the deans from these schools will visit MF offices, there’s often a relationship between the firms and the schools that’s beneficial. Not to be confused with the college admissions scandal, but there are backdoor conversations that happen between the high-level alumni at these firms and the admissions offices - really just pushing for candidates who are highly qualified to begin with.
I think everyone can piece that logic together pretty easily though, and I want to address this “story” concept that you bring up. As I explained above, the professional accomplishments and background will get you noticed at these schools and increase your chances of getting in, so those people have a leg up there, but business schools do not accept 100% of these kids. The “story you pitch” is what pushes you from qualified to admitted, and that story should not in any way be a list of professional accomplishments - as you said, doing that will not help you stand out from the crowd. Focusing on deal experience will likely make you come off as boring/shallow at the very least, which will make business schools think that you won’t add to the class very much.
Despite the resumes of everyone from this pool of applicants looking similar, each person has a story to tell of how they got to where they are and how their collective life experiences have shaped who they have become and will drive them towards the goal they have articulated in their application. You don’t need to have a unique life story or have overcome significant hardship; what you DO need to have is a unique and thoughtful perspective, which will allow you to connect your experiences and craft a coherent narrative that gives business schools the impression that you will 1) add to the class in a meaningful way and 2) be a good fit. As a white male from an upper middle-class family, there wasn’t a single moment of clarity or turning point in my life that I could craft my narrative around; rather, I had a series of smaller experiences to talk about and had to think long and hard about the common thread connecting those stories so that by the time someone was done reading my application they would feel like they knew who I am and what drives me.
The essay is the best place to do this since that’s the only part of the application that gives you the chance to really flesh out a narrative. The best advice I can give is to take a step back and figure out who you are on paper/resume, and then think about how you want your essay to add to that impression (can be related or unrelated). The themes that you express in your essay will inform how you tailor other parts of your application, which can be personalized in ways that become obvious once you fill these fields out. For example, if your essay paints a picture of you as an energetic people-person, you can mention that you led recruiting in the “accomplishments” section of your professional experience entries (along with your deal experience).
Lastly, as far as extracurriculars go, admissions folks are aware that you don’t have much time to devote to community service involvement. But you do have some time. The best thing to do is get involved with an organization that fits within your overall story/narrative and do whatever you can to contribute. Even better, if it’s an organization that strives to achieve an impact beyond itself (mentoring, for example), then that will be an impactful entry for a b school application.
Hope this helps.
Wanted to tack on to this post to expand on what I mean by perspective/narrative. The goal of your essay - which you can safely assume is the “story you pitch” to business schools - should be to tell your story in a way that’s meaningful to you. It’s not a pitch for how you could benefit from being at that specific school, nor is it a space for you to bluntly talk about everything you’ve accomplished. Those things can certainly be parts of your story, but ideally they’re small relative to everything else you’re communicating - how experiences or influences have shaped who you are, what you’ve carried forward from those experiences, how all of that sheds light on what motivates you, etc.
I’ve seen this done in a few different ways based on essays I read from older colleagues who had successfully applied to business school. One of my coworkers talked about a job he had in high school and how different experiences there have influenced his professional life and personal outlook: how his managers influenced how he leads, how exposure to different kinds of people impacts his interactions with teammates, etc. Sometimes these kinds of essays can come off as overly-engineered since it can feel like a stretch to connect experiences from a trivial summer job to what he’s done in IB/PE roles since, but he wrote it in a way that came off as humble and reflective.
Another one of my colleagues talked about a life-long hobby of his (worth mentioning that this was a very common hobby) and used that as a springboard to convey his dominant personality trait and how that permeates other aspects of his life. He talked about how that aspect of his personality helped him overcome certain family challenges, drove him to pursue certain interests in college and be proactive in different ways at work, etc. He wrapped up his essay by explaining how this trait impacts what he will prioritize in how he approaches his post-MBA goal, a goal that wasn’t entirely unique or original but ended up being cast in a more positive light because of his perspective.
The best essay I read from someone else was how a coworker was inspired by a book he read/documentary he saw early on in his life and what that inspiration led him to pursue growing up and in college. The connection to his professional experiences was indirect at best, but he artfully bridged the gap and made the connection in a way that came off as genuine and believable. From there, he was able to talk about how specific aspects of his professional experiences directly connect to his post-MBA goal. Everything he talked about in the essay was described in a way that was thematically consistent with the experience he talked about in the intro - making his passion come off as sincere - and because the essay talked through experiences chronologically the narrative was really clear.
My essay was focused on how an embarrassing experience when I was really young impacted my approach to people/experiences growing up (it was not tramautic or unique in any way, but embarrassing enough at a young age), how subsequent experiences led me to overcome the embarrassment/impact from that experience, and how that personal development shaped how I approached different turning points in my life as I got older. I described in pretty blunt terms what I learned/how I developed throughout and how everything I experienced built on itself, all of which was consistent with and connected back to the “thesis on myself” that I had established in the intro (as a prelude to my embarrassing experience). I didn’t make any specific connections to why I pursued banking/investing because that wasn’t the point - I was trying to get across who I was. To drive the point home, the different things I expressed in my essay culminated in a very specific leadership story from my professional life that demonstrated how I wanted the folks in admissions to view the finished product - me, at the end of the narrative that I had laid out. I very briefly concluded with how everything I’ve learned from my experiences would help me achieve my post-MBA goal.
Hopefully this helps get the point across. As I mentioned, all of these “pitches” were from people with BB+MF backgrounds, so despite their resumes being similar they all had something different to say. Additionally, none of the examples I mentioned above were written by people who came from exceptionally challenging circumstances. I am not trying to minimize challenges that others overcome to get to where they are - if overcoming poverty, being raised by immigrants, being a first-generation college student, etc. is part of your story, then by all means convey that because those stories are powerful. But coming from a privileged background or more fortunate circumstance does not preclude you from telling a story that is both memorable and likable enough to get noticed and eventually admitted.
I remember feeling frustrated with how a lot of the articles I read online about “telling your story” in the MBA application weren’t very helpful. It wasn’t until I got the chance to read other essays that I had a concrete idea of what “telling your story” really means. So hopefully these examples, though lacking specific details, help people gain a better understanding of what a “pitch” to business schools really is.
Thanks for taking the time to do this
While it is common for those two groups to exit to MFs, did you have to be discrete about recruiting for MFs at the time or was the group supportive.
Hey thanks for doing this!
What's your age and current net worth?
Nice job dodging my question.
I was hoping someone on this forum would be able to walk you through the very simple thought process that would allow you to estimate both of those numbers based on the information in my original post. Looks like no one came through, but don't give up. You can do it, I believe in you
I'm a freshman in college at the moment. Any recommendations or tips in order to increase one's odds at admission to a top B-school (H/S/W)?
I'm not OP, but as a freshman you're getting way ahead of yourself. Average business school students have about 5 years of work experience; that's 8-9 years away for you. You don't even know if you will want/need an MBA at that point of your life/career.
That being said, here's 5 tips regardless:
Best, Recent MBA business schools">M7 admit
Are you not gonna reply to the highlighted comment that's probably the most valuable insight you can share w/ the thread?
Your post is light on specifics, but if I'm being honest you're in a tough spot at this point. Some of what I outline below might be a bit too intentional for some people, but assuming you have your heart set on landing a role at GS the best advice I can offer you is the following:
First, identify individuals you can connect with in the bank - alumni network, broader personal network, high-probability LinkedIn messaging, etc. - and get in touch with them to learn more about their roles within the firm. Unless a spot opens up unexpectedly at some point in the near future, you're playing the long game at this point. Your focus should be on building a genuine relationship with folks instead of gunning for an open position - ask for advice, be sincerely interested in what they're saying, continue to follow-up with them, etc. You can ask if they have any openings during the intro conversation, but it should come at the end of your discussion; if you do ask make sure you phrase the question as something along the lines of, "I know there are likely not any open positions at this point given timing, but if you happen to know about anything..." It will reflect better on you if you demonstrate that you're aware of your situation in particular and knowledgeable about the process in general.
While you're executing on the above, once you've figured out the area within the firm where you have a critical mass of potential connections, try to look for full-time roles that are adjacent to what you'll be doing in that department. What I mean by this is the following: if you can get introduced to people within GS Tech, then try to land a role that gets you working on infrastructure or data/analytics; if you find that a lot of people within your network are clustered in Treasury, then try to get a job in corporate finance; assuming you'd like to eventually up in IB, the best case scenario would be for you to have a lot of potential acquaintances within GS, in which case you should focus on analyst roles at boutique investment banks. Whatever the case may be, you should try to have your first job out of college make you more attractive for the role within GS that you have the highest chance of landing (i.e. where your network is). This might be the wrong strategy for some banks, but GS in particular encourages top performers to move around internally as a way to develop professionally (they call it "mobility"). I imagine that this is harder to do for some back/middle office roles (no particular insight there), but just know that GS is open to this kind of thing. Again, assuming you'd like to eventually end up in IB (you don't mention this specifically), the first step is getting past the gates so you'll want to position yourself appropriately
Continue to follow up and build relationships with the people you've networked with. Turnover in all parts of the bank is high enough at the junior level where something will open up eventually. If you've networked properly - i.e. formed actual relationships and informed them of your interest in the firm - then most people will happily refer you for anything that becomes available.
Once you have an offer in hand, do your due diligence and make sure you're smart on the career paths within GS that are available/likely from the role you've been offered. As I mentioned in point 2 above, GS encourages mobility for top performers but if your goal is to end up in IB then how steep your uphill battle is very much depends on where you start within the bank.
Hopefully the above helps. Again, some may disagree with what I've outlined, but that's basically how I'd approach the process - the key input is how determined you are to land a role at the firm and what early-career sacrifices/risks you're willing to expose yourself to in order to get there. Feel free to message me directly if you think providing more specific info on your situation would allow me to give more targeted advice.
During diligence process, what were your responsibilities was an Associate at a MF? Did you spend most of your time modeling, reading and analyzing diligence reports, developing a 100 day plan, legal doc negotiations, etc etc. I've always heard MF Associates spend most of the time in excel, whereas Associates at MM/LMM can "see more" of the deal lifecycle. Curious if that lines up with your experiences.
At various points in time, all of the above. I haven't heard of any MFs working differently from what I've experienced so I'll speak generally here.
The first thing to understand is that, as an associate at a MF, you'll find yourself oscillating between two very different cadences as far as work flow is concerned. If you and a VP/Principal are lightly exploring an opportunity, or if you are on a deal team in the early stages of a deal process, you will be the only associate on the team and will thus be responsible for anything that needs to get done. You obviously don't have as much to do during these times (no need to negotiate with lenders at the beginning of a process), but it's safe to say that you will be doing literally everything that requires substantial work or can otherwise free up time for the senior folks on the team (coordinating internal processes, leading intro calls with management, etc.).
When a process heats up, more junior resources will be added to a deal team. At this point, the roles and responsibilities of the senior/junior associate are well-defined. The first-year is responsible for the model and any diligence associated with model inputs; some deals require very intricate models due to the target itself, while some processes just move really quickly. Either way, my point is that a first-year associate will spend ~80-90% of their time in the model during serious deal processes. I'm not talking about managing a bunch of different excel files with unique analyses, creating various outputs, and calling it a day; literally, most of their time will be spent in one excel file.
Once you're out of the model as a second-year associate you have a lot more time to take on different responsibilities during a deal process. On the diligence side, you should expect to lead the research process to help the team form a view on the target's industry and competitors; additionally, you'll be responsible for the micro-analytics that help prove out the different aspects of a target's business model. Those are the standard associate-level tasks that most people think of since they require you to get deep on a diligence topic, synthesize what you've learned, and produce materials that help communicate the main points.
At the same time, you have the opportunity to drive some of the process-oriented work that's required in a deal (and often done by the VP). It's pretty standard for second-year associates to coordinate with consultants/accountants/other buy-side advisors; you define the scope of work, make sure things are running smoothly, and ensure that your deal team is getting the output they need from those advisors. If you prove that you're competent with this entry-level process work, you'll be given as much responsibility as you can reasonably handle given your experience and role at the firm - it's unlikely that you'll be trusted enough to negotiate key economic terms on your own, but it's not uncommon for VPs/Principals to ask an associate they trust to lead/handle the negotiation process for some of the more trivial items that get worked out in deal docs.
Finally, if you've made the right impression with your deal team, you'll be trusted to lead discussions with management teams - whether they be diligence sessions, walking through post-transaction strategy/vision, etc.
All of this is to say no, I don't think that I've missed out on any aspect of the deal process due to being at a larger firm. It just occurred to me that anything you might have read or heard that contradicts what I'm saying could be referencing the fact that larger firms tend to have more resources than the smaller guys - and by "resources" I mean things like an Operations team to help manage the portfolio and assist with different types of diligence (synergy plans, for example), or a Capital Markets team that helps negotiate with lenders. If that's the case, then yes, I suppose I have missed out on certain parts of the deal process. To be honest though, I am glad that I ended up at a firm with those types of teams - I've been involved with a lot of those conversations/processes and have seen those guys in action, and I can confidently say that I'm happy to not have those kinds of things on my plate on a regular basis.
A little late to the party, Classica , but I'm wondering when you took your GMAT and what your scored (if you wouldn't mind sharing).
I work at an UMM firm with a "sweatshop" reputation and am having trouble finding time to study for the GMAT and think through my essays, so wondering what your timeline looked like. I saw your recommendation above to take it in college, but obviously that ship has sailed for me!
Sure - got a 760 and took it while in my current role (at PE firm).
Not sure when your target date is for applying, but if you’re planning to apply this coming year in R1 or R2 then I would highly suggest directing all of your focus towards the GMAT before focusing on other parts of the app. If you take it by end of June or mid-July then you should have more than enough time to write good applications (depending on how many schools you’re applying to).
For study time, it was a little tough. Had to take it multiple times. Everyone is different, but for most people GMAT studying is most effectively done through a highly concentrated amount of time for a few weeks or 1.5 months (vs. studying for only a few hours here and there for 2-3 months), and work schedule was just tough for me leading into test days. Bad luck. Best suggestion for time management is to really get started during a down period to get some momentum; once work picks back up again, you’re going to need to devote a few hours in the evening before returning to work late at night so that you’re fresh. Be diligent about how you spend your weekends... if you really care about going to business school, then studying for the test should be the only thing on your mind for at least 3-4 weekends in a row depending on how long you need to study for.
For the other parts of the app, highly suggest hiring a consultant to help craft your story. If anything, just helps to get a second perspective. Really effective consultants can help you craft a better app than you would have otherwise been able to on your own, but for the most part it’s just helpful to bounce ideas off of someone who is well-informed.
Generally, I told headhunters that I was shooting for PE associate spots at funds in the MF and upper middle-market range. I would follow up this general comment by mentioning specific places I was interested in, which were tailored to align with folks on their client list.
The takeaway here is that you should be as specific as possible when you meet with headhunters - help them help you. I had a fairly clear idea of where I wanted to end up (some people don’t - totally acceptable when starting out) and outlined a rationale that made enough sense at the time, which made it easy for headhunters because it allowed them to approach their clients and say that getting to know me would be a good use of time (assuming I otherwise impressed in my initial meeting...).
If you think about what people are optimizing for then it becomes pretty clear how being super specific is helpful for them, which in turn is helpful for you. There’s a lot of hoopla surrounding the PE recruiting process for obvious reasons, but the reality is that the vast majority of folks at the VP+ level want to spend as little time on recruiting as possible. Headhunters help them achieve that by reaching out to hundreds of analysts each year, identifying who the qualified candidates are from that group, and whittling down the list from there based on candidate preferences that tend to become more clear over time. Headhunters are paid a success fee when the candidates they recommend receive and accept offers from their clients, and are therefore incentivized to present candidates who are likely to make it all the way through.
Following this logic, the person that everyone is hoping to identify in the recruiting process is a qualified candidate that makes their preferences known early on - the more specific the better since this allows all sides to benefit. A headhunter feels confident in flagging you to their clients if they know that they are recommending someone who is likely to accept an offer if the PE firm is willing to spend the time; after you have accepted the offer and all is said and done, the PE client feels like they used their time effectively, while the headhunter is seen as providing a valuable service and is paid a success fee. Both sides essentially “get the biggest bang for their buck,” so to speak, all because you made your preferences clear early on.
Aside from the above, and to answer the part of your question that I haven’t yet addressed, a few things:
Your question somewhat suggests that firms hire and allocate employees to specific fund vintages, which doesn’t happen to my knowledge; just to be clear, if you work for Blackstone PE you invest capital out of whichever funds are active, whether it’s Blackstone Partners I or Blackstone Partners VII. Your question brings up an important point though, which is that investment firms, particularly the larger shops, can have diversified strategies for LPs to allocate capital towards (i.e. KKR PE vs. KKR Growth vs. KKR Real Estate). Typically, these parts of the firms will operate as entirely separate entities; different LP base, different committee process, different decision-makers, different associate pool, etc. For firms where this happens to be the case, then my advice above still holds; it’s best to be as specific as possible when discussing your preferences and goals for the recruiting process. To be honest though, it’s probably rare for this to matter since different parts of the same PE firm will often hire different headhunters to help manage recruiting (some headhunting firms are specialized and will be most effective sourcing candidates for non-LBO/growth equity strategies, such as Real Estate). This will be reflected in the headhunter client list, i.e. the firm representing TPG Growth will refer to “TPG Growth” specifically rather than list “TPG” vaguely
Prior to any meeting, research the headhunting firm you’re meeting with and get familiar with the types of firms they recruit for; if it’s available, go a level deeper and research their list of clients and pick out specific names you’re interested in. The firms don’t have to be exactly what you’re looking for, just have names from their client list off the top of your head that are broadly consistent with what you’re targeting - if your dream is to end up at Golden Gate but you’re meeting with the headhunter for LGP, make that adjustment. Very rarely are folks left choosing among multiple offers that are equally attractive; you either get the offer that you want or you pick the next best thing, so your goal should be to cast a relatively wide net. Again, it’s all about helping headhunters help you, so referencing firms that they actually have relationships with makes their job easy and increases the likelihood that they will flag you to their clients
Try to have an initial meeting with most of the headhunters that reach out to you during your first year in order to establish a good relationship, even if you’re sure that you’re not interested in the firms that they represent or the types of investing they focus on. Given the “gatekeeper” role they serve in the recruiting process, it’s natural to feel intimidated in your first few meetings. Once you relax a bit and recognize that intimidation isn’t their goal, you’ll see that the majority of the folks across the table are fun, smart, social people who are always open to grabbing a coffee and catching up every once in a while as you maintain your network. Others on this board will advise you to treat headhunters nicely/with respect, and this is consistent with that advice. Treating everyone with respect and kindness is obviously important to do generally, but forming and maintaining good relationships with headhunters over the years can positively impact your career. They’re incredibly knowledgeable on different firms/funds, obviously have broad networks, and will be more than happy to refer you to open roles that they know about or otherwise put you in touch with someone who can be more helpful
Hopefully all of that helps, feel free to message me privately