So I am currently looking for a new role being largely fed up with hours and bored with work contents at my current place. I have been with the same company for over 4 years, basically fresh out of uni so not much interview experience. I am also not in NY or London, but in a large capital in Western Europe which is strong in finance (hence opportunities are not endless)
So far I have been very picky about vacancies I apply for and in 95% of the cases I got invited for several rounds of interviews. However, still no offer. The reasons? Well, I guess that's why I am here.
I do understand the standard rejections you get in response to your application, but after being through several rounds of interviews the reasons I have beeen dismissed weird me out. Top 3 financial institution in the country told me that I am too knowledgeable, whathever that means. The vacancy asked for 3 years of experience and I am just over 4 years, so not really too senior. Another senior guy in the last round with the top financial institution in the country flat out told me I am wasting my brains in my current "crappy bank" (well its the best one we have here), that he has nothing to offer to challenge me and I should try Goldman in London as it seems more suitable. To top it off i was told I am too ambitious. Was very random cause up until then everything was going well and I was sure I will get it. Applied for an exactly same position with 2 different banks and one decided I am not quantative enough (fair) and another that I won't be challanged enough by the work and will get bored (unfair assumption).
Anyone else go dismissed after interviews for funny reasons? I mean who kicks out a candidate they likeed for a long time cause that candidate is too ambitious and could probably work for Goldman. Do they want stupid people?
Also any advice?
If you humble bragged this much during your interviews, it's no surprise they rejected you. The "you're too smart for this role" reason - considering you had ideal experience - is obviously bullshit. You probably didn't do well enough or they found someone else they liked more.
I obviously will never know the real reason. But it would be normal to say anything along the lines of not right skills/experience/personality. Telling something sort of good as a rejection is just funny hence the post. I know who the other candidate was who got hired: third tier bank, more junior, local national, average in every way so they won't have troubles to keep him.
No humble brag intended, just the reality of non London /NY finance world. I am now with the top bank of this country, there are not that many options to move and if other good places think I am too much for them (also may be salary wise) than I don't have that many options and it sucks big time cause I want to move on.
If you never ask, they might never tell.
As much as these sound "funny", they are actually pretty legit reasons.
What they mean is that you are too experienced, and will probably end up leaving sooner than they want and they don't want to have to go through hiring again.
As much as too little experience can hurt you, too much can as well. Would you want to bring in someone with years of experience in a junior role? Most times than not they tend to clash with superiors or create disruption in the chain of command.
^ This
Hypothetically, if the employer is specifically looking for an analyst (with a 2 year runway before promote), and OP is more like an Associate for example, the employer will worry the OP will leave sooner than needed due to: boredom, insufficient pay/title to match responsibilities, and potential subsequent resentment from OP should he outperform but doesn’t get an “early promote”.
Other things could include wanting someone they can “mold”, grow into the role, and can adopt the way the firm does certain things vs. someone that may already have a strong view on how to do something and may resist. There could also be the worry the person will not be willing to do less glamorous / grunt / dirty work.
It’s not fair to assume these things of an experienced candidate, but it’s not illogical either. And hiring is a pain - finding the right person (quality and cultural fit) takes a long ass time. They don’t want to invest all this time, and have to repeat this process a year from now.
Agreed.
It could also be a hierarchy issue as well. In some cases, you don't want to hire someone with more experience under you because they may undermine you or team.
European VC fund dinged a buddy of mine from the final round for asking too many questions (so they said). Funny reason, since a large part of the job is being inquisitive.
You aren't worth your asking price. That's the real response behind those fake one's.
Not a funny reason, but I was first choice candidate for an NYC firm but they somehow found a blog post of mine from several months ago where I claimed I didn't want to leave Boston (where I went to school). Apparently my lack of dedication to moving to NYC was enough to make them go for their second choice :(
When I was working in PR/IR, I interviewed for a firm who also found an op/ed I once wrote, pointing out some flaws of the PR industry and how individuals working in it should strive towards a more quantitative approach to measurement. It was an academic-type article, with references and everything. But apparently that was a major red flag because they were afraid I would shit-talk their methodology if I was hired on (yes, they told me this outright).
Which, to be fair, was a pretty dumb methodology. So they weren't completely off the mark.
Just use a pseudonym when writing stuff online and don't give a lot of revealing information away that people can be able to track your identity down.
+1
Totally agree but unfortunately, I think this sort of mindset across the industry has negative side effects as well. Everyone keeps their mouth shut and opinions to themselves in fear of negative effects on their career. The end result is that no one who works in the business actually writes about the business and the conversation gets high-jacked by liberal arts professors and journalism graduates who don't have a clue. Occasionally, you may get a Michael Lewis with a whopping 2 years of experience in fixed income sales commenting on the industry but that's about it.
Entrepreneur Hero On a side note, no one takes you seriously as an anonymous writer. Open up a copy of today's NYT, Washington Post, and WSJ. How many anonymous authors do you see in there?
If the firm is willing to cut my offer because they can't handle constructive criticism of their industry, I wouldn't want to work for them anyways :9
You should probably work on your responses for personal questions. Seems like the main one you may be tripping up on is the reason for leaving. Not too sure what your response is to that question, but if you are telling them you do not feel challenged or are bored at your position then that may explain it.
Majority of responses aren't necessarily a stab at your intelligence levels but more your fit within their culture. Atleast you are getting good traction with getting interviews, so one will eventually bite.
Best of luck.
-XSX
Yeah, I have a feeling this is exactly the reason. Sounds like it's sarcasm and mockery on the interviewer's part. If you still don't get it and posted here, you really can't blame them. This is something you should work on.
Case interviews lead to a ton of the worst (and most hilarious) rejections.
McKinsey Round 1: "Your framework wasn't MECE enough." ...What? Got off that phone call as quickly as possible.
Bain Round 1: "You could have been more creative when you brainstormed." For the uninitiated, case interviews often have a "brainstorm" component near the end where you just make shit up for about 30 seconds. General pacing is to say ~two options for what to do next, interviewer asks "what else" you say one/two more, and then then interviewer asks "anything else" one last time and you say either one more or say that's all you have. Don't have my notes but this case was either about pay phones or ice cream trucks so I guess I ran out of options.
Half my class was recruiting consulting so they had to cut somebody, not even mad.
Edit: Do you really have enough data points to say you have a 95% success rate? Humble bragging could have been a problem as said above.
A chick once told me she really liked me but I reminded her of her dad and she'd "Been down that road before."
also i didnt read op
There should be a whole other thread about this type of rejection.
Rem vel ducimus pariatur. At ea ea illum et non quia aspernatur. Suscipit dolor adipisci hic dolores ad.
Qui asperiores odio omnis quo sapiente. Voluptate enim voluptate labore dignissimos voluptatem similique.
Ut quo in enim molestiae necessitatibus est quaerat facilis. Dolores vitae est suscipit nemo voluptatem eveniet. Enim et quas molestiae eum ab dolores.
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...
Suscipit aliquam voluptatum molestiae dolore quo. Harum voluptas qui itaque inventore deserunt est. Tempore unde sit pariatur rem blanditiis consectetur quis.
Et asperiores commodi minima corrupti et eos. Veritatis nesciunt voluptatem voluptate expedita in. Cupiditate veniam in consequatur omnis. Recusandae voluptatem eveniet ut explicabo quas aut.
Voluptatem non autem porro eveniet. Sequi consequuntur laboriosam eveniet exercitationem. Numquam deserunt impedit repellat magni optio est. Modi fugit et voluptas quos dolor.