FT Interview GPA Cutoffs/Ranges

honestly nowadays I feel like the cutoffs are all around 3.75 unless you're in engineering. Not saying you won't get an interview if you have lower than that, but it's significantly harder

if you are at a top 10 school and have networked so you know a couple people in the firm, you should be fine with around a 3.7 (regardless of major). Plus the bar for full-time recruiting is usually a bit less competitive than for summer internships b/c they hire so much more.

I agree with the ~3.7 number. Also, Monitor is now a part of Deloitte. Just fyi.

It varies by firm and by school and by major, but ~3.7 is in the ballpark. At the end of the day, GPA is just one component in resume reviews, and a pretty flexible one at that. Networking > Work experience > GPA most of the time.

It's around 3.7 but I know people with lower GPA's who interviewed through connections.

Out of curiosity are the hiring criteria different for summer interns vs FT?

partners:

Out of curiosity are the hiring criteria different for summer interns vs FT?

Criteria are pretty much the same, from what I've seen and been told by current consultants. There are just more spots for full-time hiring. You still need to be impressive, though.

does this mean a 3.5-3.6 at a top 10 UG university will not get an interview with these firms without connections and networking?

helpinghand:

does this mean a 3.5-3.6 at a top 10 UG university will not get an interview with these firms without connections and networking?

Depends what else you've got on your resume and how good the other candidates are

For on-campus consulting recruiting, I'd say GPA = Work Experience > Networking. If you're targeting a firm that doesn't do on-campus recruiting, it would be more like Networking > GPA = Work Experience. Consulting firms focus a bit more on GPA than banks do...especially BCG/McKinsey.

blind_banker:

As someone that has gone through this personally I don't think you should focus too much on getting your GPA over 3.7. I am from Georgia Tech(aka not a huge or even well known "target" school) and both my best friend and I got interviews with Deloitte's M&A group. I finished with a 3.3 GPA and my friend finished with around a 3.0 GPA. Even though we both have what this site considers sub-pars GPAs we both had great extracurricular activities and good work experience which got us the interview. Now we didn't get the job but I am an analyst in the corporate banking division of a major MM bank and my friend works in the strategy/finance group of a stratup healthcare group. What I am trying to say is GPA ranges are subjective and can be be overcome with being a well-rounded student/person. If you focus more on being a well rounded student and networking then I think you will have greater success at 1) getting an interview and 2) succeeding in your interview than if you just focused on having over a 3.7 GPA. Just my 2 cents, good luck in your job hunt.

You didn't get the job. That's the moral of the story. To get the job, you really ought to have good grades, strong extracurriculars, and have networked effectively.

I had a similar story, but I attended a very well-known school with strong recruiting; I simply didn't do myself any favors with my grades. I had a compelling story, networked properly (not in the automated, forced manner so many people on this site seem to adopt), and got into one of the groups everyone here salivates over. Come recruiting season though, I know I'll be gritting my teeth at the fact that my grades were what they were. I don't think you can stress enough how much easier you can make things for yourself by doing well in the classroom. It helps for banking recruiting, for buy-side recruiting, and for b-school admissions. Those are all really meaningful steps in your career. You can drastically alter the trajectory of your life simply with some application and diligence in the first four semesters of college. I will preach this to anyone who still has the chance to improve their situation. It's important to excel outside of the classroom as well (and I can honestly say that's the only reason I've gotten as far as I have so far), but excelling within the classroom is a very controllable and meaningful boost to your future quality of life.

^^ To be fair, a 3.3 at Georgia Tech is not as bad as it sounds. I think that's pretty close to high honors. Graduating with a 3.55 gets you a "with highest honor."

APAE - I agree with you that my story didn't have the fairy tale ending, but in all fairness this thread is about GPA cutoffs to get an interview. I was just trying to show the OP that one can get the interviews they want(within reason) without having to kill themselves trying to get a 3.7 as long as they have a well rounded resume. Now what you do when you get your desired interview is a different story for a different thread.

blind_banker:

APAE - I agree with you that my story didn't have the fairy tale ending, but in all fairness this thread is about GPA cutoffs to get an interview. I was just trying to show the OP that one can get the interviews they want(within reason) without having to kill themselves trying to get a 3.7 as long as they have a well rounded resume. Now what you do when you get your desired interview is a different story for a different thread.

I mean, you also didn't help the OP answer his question in that you told a story about Deloitte's M&A group (which is more akin to a MM IB), when the OP clearly wanted something consulting based...

My experience is similar to those those above but I'll give some input as well.

I interviewed FT with one of the MBB and Deloitte this past year. The listings on OCR has 3.5 GPA cutoffs (HR told me that they were not hard cutoffs but were generally followed) and a recommended GPA of 3.7+. Most people I talked to who interviewed has 3.7 or above. I imagine those with lower GPAs had outstanding work experience, networked effectively, or had a challenging major (STEM).

APAE makes a really good point that's often overlooked. Networking can do absolute wonders, especially for non-targets - but to actually get someone to go bat for you isn't as easy as a lot of posts on WSO make it seem. If companies do recruit on campus, it's a lot easier to get an interview simply by applying yourself and getting decent grades. Apart from some really difficult majors, you can do well in most college classes by simply pouring in the hours necessary. Grades are taken in an artificial environment and are for the most part objective - you don't have to deal with biases and it's easy to control your performance. At my school, there were some really great guys who networked into MBBs with 3.4 GPAs. Their stories are pretty incredible. But for every one of them, there were five guys who worked hard and come recruiting season they lined up interviews with little to no work. The point is that at some point, you're going to have to put in effort - be it with grades, networking, etc. In the long run, networking is an extremely important skill that definitely outpaces GPA in terms of benefits. But as a recent graduate/student, if your grades aren't good - for every single opportunity that comes up you're going to have to network, or have a good story - and that won't stop until you have a sizable amount of experience.

partners:

Out of curiosity are the hiring criteria different for summer interns vs FT?

Talked to an ex-Bain consultant today who said that they like to see more on-campus involvement from interns, as they want them to return to their school and be an 'ambassador' for the firm as well as help them pick out solid candidates.