4 ms·

I've been hired as an investment banker, and hired as an investment banker, and I can tell you this is nonsense. The IB interview process does a very good job

I've been hired as an investment banker, and hired as an investment banker, and I can tell you this is nonsense. The IB interview process does a very good job of screening candidates for mastery of basic skills -- if you don't have a very strong grasp of accounting, valuation, free cashflow, and so on, you will not get an offer. After passing those competence hurdles, yes, personality and fit questions do matter.

dimino 11y ago
I'm guessing this problem is similar to the one I vaguely recall reading about regarding Google: Almost everyone who applies has the intellect required to perform well at Google. That's why intelligence isn't a good criteria for recruiters at Google to use as a differentiator. I would guess the same thing applies here (please correct me if I'm wrong, given your experience) -- almost all the folks who apply will have a fairly solid grasp on accounting, valuation, etc. (the technical/knowledge parts), especially if they're coming from Harvard/Stanford/et al. Therefore, since "knowledge" isn't a very good differentiator (everyone who gets a resumé on your desk is competent), folks in these prestigious positions have to filter for something else -- and it seems they've chosen "fit".
- smm2000 11y ago
  It's just not true that almost everyone who applies to Google has intellect required to perform well. Easily 50% of people who gets to onsite loop are not able to do Fizzbuzz. Phone screens are just sad. If you think that everyone who applies to IBs has solid grasp on accounting, valuation, etc - you are way overestimating average Ivy League student.
- chernevik 11y ago
  Most applicants can't get past the competence checks. Candidates who could get past the competence checks could get dinged for fit questions, but there weren't so many of them that we could be terribly choosy. Maybe Goldman can be. There just aren't that many people who are that smart, that skilled, and that willing to work that hard. Now that's entry-level. Who is promoted and succeeds, that's a different question. Fit questions matter a lot more there. But even then I think the key skill was the ability to see problems from a client's perspective, and from a senior banker's. The folks who can execute with those perspectives in mind, those are the ones who do very well. Investment banks, at least at the entry levels, are meritocracies. If you can understand what it means to deliver, and deliver, you'll do well. But that understanding is trickier than it looks. Now there is a networking effect to this process. But it's more about getting information about what skills the banks will be looking for, and where to get that information, and the standards that they're looking for. This stuff isn't written down in manuals, you have to extract it from other people. If you don't know that stuff, you don't know what targets you have to hit.
foobarqux 11y ago
Did you leave IB? Why?

dimino 11y ago

I'm guessing this problem is similar to the one I vaguely recall reading about regarding Google: Almost everyone who applies has the intellect required to perform well at Google. That's why intelligence isn't a good criteria for recruiters at Google to use as a differentiator. I would guess the same thing applies here (please correct me if I'm wrong, given your experience) -- almost all the folks who apply will have a fairly solid grasp on accounting, valuation, etc. (the technical/knowledge parts), especially if they're coming from Harvard/Stanford/et al. Therefore, since "knowledge" isn't a very good differentiator (everyone who gets a resumé on your desk is competent), folks in these prestigious positions have to filter for something else -- and it seems they've chosen "fit".

smm2000 11y ago
It's just not true that almost everyone who applies to Google has intellect required to perform well. Easily 50% of people who gets to onsite loop are not able to do Fizzbuzz. Phone screens are just sad. If you think that everyone who applies to IBs has solid grasp on accounting, valuation, etc - you are way overestimating average Ivy League student.
chernevik 11y ago
Most applicants can't get past the competence checks. Candidates who could get past the competence checks could get dinged for fit questions, but there weren't so many of them that we could be terribly choosy. Maybe Goldman can be. There just aren't that many people who are that smart, that skilled, and that willing to work that hard. Now that's entry-level. Who is promoted and succeeds, that's a different question. Fit questions matter a lot more there. But even then I think the key skill was the ability to see problems from a client's perspective, and from a senior banker's. The folks who can execute with those perspectives in mind, those are the ones who do very well. Investment banks, at least at the entry levels, are meritocracies. If you can understand what it means to deliver, and deliver, you'll do well. But that understanding is trickier than it looks. Now there is a networking effect to this process. But it's more about getting information about what skills the banks will be looking for, and where to get that information, and the standards that they're looking for. This stuff isn't written down in manuals, you have to extract it from other people. If you don't know that stuff, you don't know what targets you have to hit.

foobarqux 11y ago

Did you leave IB? Why?