Management Consultant MBB Big4 etc etc etc

I used to run recruiting for MBB in SEA. Yes, we do recruit locally for analyst level as best as we can. From schools like NUS (and NTU to a much smaller extent) in Singapore; Ateneo (and UPH to a much smaller extent) in the Phils; ITB (and Univ of Indonesia to a much smaller extent) in Jakarta, etc. But the yield we were getting out of this channel was typically very low. In a recruiting season, we were lucky to get 1-2 per country put of 300-500 applicants per country. And these applicants were already cherry-picked based on academic and extracurricular measures.

For US/EU graduates, the focus is about 15-20 schools. These are the usual suspects. The 8 Ivies in the US plus MIT and Stanford. The public Ivies in the US (Berkeley, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia). Oxbridge, INSEAD, LSE, Imperial College. These are the same schools that MBB-sponsored analysts get their MBAs from.

For ANZ, we don't typically go to ANZ for recruitment because they are our neighbors and have their own needs to fulfill. I.e., we don't want to poach their candidates. But if there are candidates over there that are interested in SEA, the ANZ offices will simply refer them to us.

[killuagon]

Hi, between Mckinsey's Consultant - Business Technology and Bain's Associate Consultant. Which is a better opportunity?

Originally Posted by killuagon

Hi, between Mckinsey's Consultant - Business Technology and Bain's Associate Consultant. Which is a better opportunity?

I'd pick Bain AC. I question McKinsey's commitment to their Business Technology practice (BTO and subsequent incarnation)... they have a hard time differentiating from the likes of Accenture / Deloitte / EY while still wanting to charge higher rates. Perhaps this explains why it's been on and off for the last 10-15 years.

But the more important question is what you want to do in your career? This should be an important driver in your decision.

[killuagon]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'd pick Bain AC. I question McKinsey's commitment to their Business Technology practice (BTO and subsequent incarnation)... they have a hard time differentiating from the likes of Accenture / Deloitte / EY while still wanting to charge higher rates. Perhaps this explains why it's been on and off for the last 10-15 years.

But the more important question is what you want to do in your career? This should be an important driver in your decision.

I realised that Business Technology is actually a functional practice so perhaps not so much of a real consultant per se. I guess Bain's Associate Consultant offers more exposure in terms of the various industries coverage and the opportunity to engage in multiple types of functional practices along the way.

What I really hope to achieve is a career where I can work alongside the most brilliant minds like the fellow consultants, CEOs, CFOs and really pick their brain to help hone my business acumen and both soft and hard skills and offers me lots of opportunities for growth.

Originally Posted by killuagon

I realised that Business Technology is actually a functional practice so perhaps not so much of a real consultant per se. I guess Bain's Associate Consultant offers more exposure in terms of the various industries coverage and the opportunity to engage in multiple types of functional practices along the way.

What I really hope to achieve is a career where I can work alongside the most brilliant minds like the fellow consultants, CEOs, CFOs and really pick their brain to help hone my business acumen and both soft and hard skills and offers me lots of opportunities for growth.

Then it's a rather obvious choice between the two, isn"t it?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I used to run recruiting for MBB in SEA. Yes, we do recruit locally for analyst level as best as we can. From schools like NUS (and NTU to a much smaller extent) in Singapore; Ateneo (and UPH to a much smaller extent) in the Phils; ITB (and Univ of Indonesia to a much smaller extent) in Jakarta, etc. But the yield we were getting out of this channel was typically very low. In a recruiting season, we were lucky to get 1-2 per country put of 300-500 applicants per country. And these applicants were already cherry-picked based on academic and extracurricular measures.

For US/EU graduates, the focus is about 15-20 schools. These are the usual suspects. The 8 Ivies in the US plus MIT and Stanford. The public Ivies in the US (Berkeley, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia). Oxbridge, INSEAD, LSE, Imperial College. These are the same schools that MBB-sponsored analysts get their MBAs from.

For ANZ, we don't typically go to ANZ for recruitment because they are our neighbors and have their own needs to fulfill. I.e., we don't want to poach their candidates. But if there are candidates over there that are interested in SEA, the ANZ offices will simply refer them to us.

I wonder what was it that causes the yield from local uni to be so low? was it that the quality of the candidates did not meet the expectations?

Originally Posted by killuagon

I realised that Business Technology is actually a functional practice so perhaps not so much of a real consultant per se. I guess Bain's Associate Consultant offers more exposure in terms of the various industries coverage and the opportunity to engage in multiple types of functional practices along the way.

What I really hope to achieve is a career where I can work alongside the most brilliant minds like the fellow consultants, CEOs, CFOs and really pick their brain to help hone my business acumen and both soft and hard skills and offers me lots of opportunities for growth.

Can you shed some light on the interview process? I was wondering if interviews for positions that are from functional departments any different from a real consulting position

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I wonder what was it that causes the yield from local uni to be so low? was it that the quality of the candidates did not meet the expectations?

I am responding as a new poster but.

In my view, MBB just tends to be very prestige conscious. Somehow, they seem stuck in this mentality that graduates from overseas universities in the US/UK are infinitely better than those from local unis.

I know a couple of pretty crappy students who went to the US who got into MBB as compared to their counterparts from local unis who got dinged locally. How would I know? Let's just say that a good number of the best applicants are from the same top few JCs, and it's well known in these places who is good and not so good.

But I guess that's life.. If you're rich and can afford to go overseas, it gives off the impression that you're "better". Whether or not that's true, I have my doubts.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I wonder what was it that causes the yield from local uni to be so low? was it that the quality of the candidates did not meet the expectations?

What I am about to say is not an exhaustive list of reasons for the low yield of MBB local recruitment effort, but simply an observation.

The recruiting at MBB is rather unique in that it employs mainly case interviews... where we put a candidate in a situation where s/he needs to assess 1-2 business issues in a short amount of time. Each interview is an interactive process over the course of 45-60 minutes designed to test several skillsets that are important in the strategy consulting world; e.g., understanding business concepts, ability to think logically, intellectual curiosity, and composure in client situations. In my observation, local grads don't perform comparatively well in the last two. I have met candidates that have very high GPAs and yet appear to be intellectually lazy; they don't prod and question the interviewers (which is key to be able to "solve" the problem) when they are stuck in the interview. They seldom take the initiative and are more reactive. Perhaps they want to solve the problem by themselves. But failing to progress in problem solving in turn destroys their confidence and they become flustered in the interview.

One thing to understand is that almost no one is a natural at case interviews, and that you need to have QUALITY practice in order to succeed at the interviews. This is perhaps what is lacking with local grads. They can practice with their fellow students but that does not replicate the actual case interview experience well enough. The advantage of US/EU grads from our target schools (and we only focus on the top schools) is they can practice with MBA students who were once MBB consultants themselves.

As for the underlying quality of the candidates, this is harder to assess. We can only gauge this via the interviews... and a typical candidate will have seen about 5-6 of our consulting staff members across 3-4 rounds before s/he gets hired. Can an otherwise good candidate fall through the crack by failing in the early interview rounds? Very possible, nothing is perfect. But with this process, while we may not hire the "best" candidates all the time, we still get them most of the time.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am responding as a new poster but.

In my view, MBB just tends to be very prestige conscious. Somehow, they seem stuck in this mentality that graduates from overseas universities in the US/UK are infinitely better than those from local unis.

I know a couple of pretty crappy students who went to the US who got into MBB as compared to their counterparts from local unis who got dinged locally. How would I know? Let's just say that a good number of the best applicants are from the same top few JCs, and it's well known in these places who is good and not so good.

But I guess that's life.. If you're rich and can afford to go overseas, it gives off the impression that you're "better". Whether or not that's true, I have my doubts.

Having been inside one of these firms, it's true that they are brand conscious. How else can they justify charging 150-200 us$ for a junior consultant fresh grad or 1 year out of uni? If your cv reads MIT, Harvard, Yale, etc, it's more justifiable.

I agree with the recruiter post. First filter is CV (school and GPA). Second filter is interview. You pass the case interviews, you are in. Don't pass, you're out. Few of my ex colleagues are rich, most 90% are middle class ppl. Of course there are some kids of prominent people, but they too must pass the interviews.