This podcast is built on a discussion we recently had with a Yale PhD. His friend, who made it to the final round of McKinsey, was told that the firm had no specific development areas for her. She just did not make the make cut and she was upset about this lack of feedback, especially having been denied a place at the firm.

This podcast explains how to interpret such feedback. Many candidates are very pleased when they are given a set of specific development areas from the firm, such as:

• You need to be more structured.

• Your calculations were too slow.

• Your MECE was not complete.

These candidates are very happy since they have very specific areas to fix. It is human nature to want to have a measurable area on which to focus.

We explain why having very specific feedback is a very bad place to be in, and why you have substantially increased odds of ever getting an offer when you receive specific feedback. It comes down to simple probability distributions. In fact, getting such specific feedback is not something to celebrate.

Moreover, we explain the one area you must focus upon if you receive vague feedback, and not get angry. Not getting specific feedback is a good place to be. It means you were likely in the top 20% of all interviewees and the firm struggled to find tangible development areas/weaknesses.

There is, however, an intangible development area which the firm cannot easily explain and you must fix this.

Training by ex-McK, BCG et al. Partners

Receive free exclusive episodes to advanced strategy and case interview training programs, plus a chapter from Bill Matassoni's Memoir. This is the ONLY way to sample FC Insider material.

Where else can you learn from ex-partners?

Sign up to receive exclusive FC Insider episodes. Start now:

Privacy Policy


Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.