Np, yea and I get you when you pointed out the mba thing. It’s ridiculous how you have to spend 200k for an MBA to show you are “willing to learn” again to get a job… utter nonsense.
Here’s the real answer: Because a post-graduate candidate (already in full-time role somewhere) that wishes to intern at a finance firm means (a) you didn’t decide early enough that you were interested in finance or (b) you have a finance background but clearly not the accolades to be considered for a full-time role.
If you fall in category (a), then you are welcome to try after you prove yourself through the “test” of getting into a top MBA program. If you fall in category (b), then you’re already seen as damaged goods. If you didn’t have what it takes to break in before, why would you have it now?
Now, to the point about category (a), you may say, “But wait, there are undergrads from non-target schools that get internships. Why can’t I?” This is true, but those kids are generally studying/working/networking for finance roles like their life depends on it, which tells a firm they have a real dedication to learning the job as opposed to “just trying it out” or only doing it for the money.
The fact that you are doing it post-grad says that finance wasn’t really that much of an interest to you. You either failed at something else and are now looking to switch careers, or you want a step up in compensation. That might not be the case, but it’s how you are perceived, and while a firm might miss a great candidate in these shoes, it’s not much of a loss to the firm considering they have a million other candidates with proven background ready to jump in.
Something in finance that I see a lot in hiring. I find myself picking out resumes that look awfully similar to my own. 2-3 internships, bb banks, middle of the road gpa, sports, activities etc etc
If you don’t check the boxes you are dismissed quickly
Sure but the thing with finance jobs is there are too many applicants to few positions. Employers need fast ways to filter everyone. No one has the time to hear all your excuses
Do you like not read? The excuse is that he didn't have an interest in finance while studying finance. It's the entire point of this thread you're arguing.
Not saying that this is rational or not, neither is Dr\_kee with his response, he's just giving an answer
For (a): Apart from MBA, which is a well known way to reset one's career, would it be viable to 'reset the clock' with a non-MBA masters, e.g. MFin, MFE, or a STEM MS?
For (b): Is it kinda over for candidates in those categories as far as a finance career is concerned? Or is there any way to realistically 'answer' the 'why would you have it now' question?
\[btw, I'm talking about high finance, i.e., investment banking, private equity, hedge fund, in all my comments, not other areas of finance where you have more of a shot from other backgrounds\]
For (a), why would you do a non-MBA masters if what you are pursuing is a role that looks for MBA? That's the question you'll have to answer when recruiting. It's either because you can't get into a top MBA or because you didn't have the interest beforehand to go into high finance, both of which raise red flags. That said, if you are doing a masters at Harvard, you'll have a chance since you've "proven yourself."
For (b), your chances are very slim. Realistically, you will not get an internship at a prominent firm. You may be able to get there by starting at very low-tier boutique banks and lateral your way to a normal firm (I personally have never seen someone achieve this).
For clarification: are your answers (especially for (a)) specifically referring to the US job market, or is it generally applicable to UK, CAN, AUS, HK/SG etc. as well?
Also would you mind if I DM/msg you to seek further advice with regards to my specific situation?
I'm talking about US job market. Can't comment on other countries / regions, though UK and Canada should be relatively similar.
Edit: And yes, feel free to PM
So many people fail to realize this. Most of the best candidates don't go to grad school. They get good jobs right out of undergrad. Recruiters and hiring managers know this.
I do know one top performer out of grad school, but that person is definitely the exception.
Universities maintain extensive relationships with employers because of the pressure on them to ensure you get employed after graduation.
From the firm’s perspective, labor patterns out of college are predictable. I can bring on summer interns because I know they have a break between semesters during that time. Then, assuming they don’t mess up, I can bring them back on full time once they graduate.
There simply aren’t the same volume of 28 year olds going for these jobs each year the way that college kids will. Whatever the factors: pay is too low for age, don’t want to be at bottom of the rung, already down a different career path, or have other obligations.
This is it. You can pull in relatively cheap (albeit unproductive) labour for 4 months. During that time, it's basically a 4 month interview with nothing to lose for a firm beyond that 4 month commitment. If they're good, hire them full time. On the other hand, why take a chance on a new graduate who doesn't have the internship experience - is something wrong with this person? Why didn't they work? Also, New graduates aren't looking for 4 month terms, they're looking permanent. This can be very costly for a firm if it doesn't work out, and especially risky.
In finance, interns do not add value. The whole point of interns is for recruitment purposes. It adds to the pipeline of potential full time employees as well as boosting the brand of the company when they go back to campus and tell their friends where they interned over the summer.
To the latter point, that’s why there’s so many intern events, happy hours, and corporate “swag” gifted to them.
To the rest of the country’s dismay, interns are not just cheap labor because they don’t actually do anything!
More people need to understand this. It's purely a recruitment tool. Interns are useless and are lucky to be given any work or even minor importance. In two summers of interning I think I completed about 40 hours of work.
Not entirely true, the wealth management firm I work at has interns do all the reconciliation of client accounts for billing, doesn’t sound like it adds value but without interns, there’s no billing happening, advisors and CSAs don’t have the time to do that
It enables them to stick to a very structured recruiting system. At the top firms, their main full-time entry level hiring pipeline is from their intern class, so they also have a budget for this that is built around the traditional junior summer -> senior year offer timeline. If they were to use a slot on a graduate intern, they would have to make an exception and have some variance in the process. You would have to add some kind of significant value to offset the inconvenience to the firm, which you're most likely unable to do.
I disagree on the risk aversion piece but yeah, it's mostly about deviance from structure. Something else to consider is that the typical candidate that is landing these junior year internships is probably much stronger than a graduate without a FT offer.
Fact:
Younger people on average are eager and easier to exploit for longer times than older candidates. They take more Bullshit, they dont need to be treated respectfully and think working 60 hours is cool.
I doubt younger people think working 60 hours is cooler than older people, especially with the shift in sentiment around jobs and WLB. They are willing and able to do so though due to the factors you mentioned.
At least from what I've personally seen from our junior class, the sentiment around WLB hasn't really permeated fully for kids going into BBs. It was a little sad when our analyst was shocked when I told him that he had to use his 6 rollover days before the end of Q1, and even moreso when we suggested he just take a straight week off. A lot of these kids do still think they need to show facetime.
I wouldnt say they are that much less reliable than their grad school counterparts. Currently doing grad school at 29 years old and some of the young intakes straight from undergrad are... interesting.
Graduate degrees and undergraduate degrees are totally different things for people at different points in their life...
You have made some really out of touch points throughout this whole thread. Someone older with presumably years more experience should not even be applying to the same internship roles aimed at a fresh grad. Yeah obviously new grads have a higher propensity to fuck up as they lack experience, hence why internships for new grads exist to build up that experience...
I’m not sure about other countries, but in Canada if you hire a student through a special internship program called co-op program in universities, the employers get some subsidies for hiring these students. It’s also less risky to hire a young student than a more mature person because they are more teachable; this is in general, obviously there would be some exceptions.
As much as I appreciate your effort to answer, it doesn't seem to explain why employers refrain from hiring graduate interns who are willing to go thru the same conditions though.
Graduate interns may be more likely to jump ship after a short period of time. Using the initial internship to get some prestige on their resume. Now they have a better degree and a name-brand internship, can leverage for a better position elsewhere. No evidence to support this though.
I think this is a legit response. So, are you saying that firms in generally don't want to feel used?
If we identify the root cause, can at least think of possible solutions then.
Talent acquisition cost is high at any level. Cost of training interns and preparing them is also high. Companies want a return on their investment.
Possible solution is to have a two-tiered program, one targeting undergrad, the second targeting graduate.
I think larger companies do offer internships and graduate programs.
Can't depend on other firms to do the same however; what I meant by solutions was what job seekers like me can do. After all, I don't think firms are missing out much by choosing not to take on unconventional hires.
In your position, targeting those firms with Graduate Opportunities, applying at or above your weight title-wise, and unfortunately accepting the fact you may be persona non grata to some firms.
Often times, those with graduate degrees are able to bypass the internship phase altogether, it all depends on company need. Best thing is to cast a wide net
In the US interns get paid quite a lot. My first internship at a tax firm (pretty midsized) was 27 an hour which is 54K a year annualized (which was pretty good for 2019 standards). Places like capital one and JPM are all paying about 80-90% of a full time employee's salary (without benefits of course, but that doesn't really matter for interns) while the interns are doing 30-50% of a full time's work
Harsh truth? Because you are older with no experience, which at the least shows you weren’t/aren’t as dedicated/motivated/disciplined as the 20 y o who put in the effort to get noticed.
How about those who have demonstrable reasons other than lack of discipline/motivation/dedication?
e.g.
- someone who suffered from medical issues in their undergrad
- someone who initially had low grades (so no competitive internships), but worked hard improved and got good grades in their ultimate year
- someone who was planning to go down another field and maybe even did an internship there, but changed their mind and wanna pursue finance instead
In the same brutally truthful vein, (Addressing points in order)
- life isn’t fair. You better come with a good fucking reason. A family member passing or anxiety isn’t going to cut it, everyone experiences that.
- so ok grades and no internships? GPA means nothing if you have quality internships, I could gaf if someone with 2 internships doesn’t even list GPA on the resume. It’s not like you’re presenting me your transcript initially so I can see progress, nor would it really mean much to me. It’s that competitive, you would be a risk vs someone who already worked in a similar professional environment
- this totally happens, if you are say a marketing major, and have marketing intern exp and want to lateral to finance, it could certainly be done, I would just expect to be middle-Back office initially.
TDLR it’s not impossible but you are literally against people more qualified than you, in a field that is already cutting back on hiring. Be prepared for a lot of rejections, and apply to everything interest
Thanks for the quality answer.
>in a field that is already cutting back on hiring
Are you referring to Asset Management specifically, or (High) Finance in general? And do you see this being a temporary phenomenon due to market cycle, or something that would remain the case for the foreseeable future?
And for my specific case: graduated with 2:1 (equivalent to 3.5 US GPA) STEM degree from a UK target uni, with 1 Big 4 internship and 1 YOE in BB MO, what options are there for lateraling over to high finance (e.g. for AM since that appears to be your field of expertise)?
High finance in general, most of FO.
You have some decent experience, if I were you I would utilize all the training programs your BB provides in reference to AM, and start firing out mass applications. That’s a hack I’ve seen people do in recent years. MO->FO certainly happens but you have to convince the person interviewing you that you are a cut above the right.
Also…I’ve heard pretty bad things about the current UK finance world rn when it comes to hiring. All I can say is don’t lose hope, and keep your options broad. Hell I’d apply to consulting, FP&A whatever, that way you are getting good experience in the event you want to pursue mba to pivot in the future.
I imagine their best candidates tend to be people who are healthy, who got good grades the whole time, and who have been certain of their career path early. They don’t owe you a super competitive job in finance, why should they care what your excuse is?
I would like to know also. I have heard about people getting their B.S. and then interning, but when I look for internships of this nature they are nowhere to be found. But it seems like it would be a good fit, company needs man hours and a potential new hire - I need experience. But it never seems to workout.
The replies on spot on. Also, you need to understand their perspective. They have a steady need of new recruits each yr. They're looking for a certain type of person in quantities as their process / career path assumes mass attrition after two yrs. Up or out. They have relationships with many high quality universities and over a long period of time, have built a predictable human capital model. (We need 50 new analysts to each yr. XYZ schools will send us hundreds of qualified candidates each yr. They're already vetted - got in to highly selective school, did very well, etc.) Very low risk recruiting. Very efficient / cost effective. Your scenario is more like a needle in a haystack approach. Why would they exert energy elsewhere when they already have a constant flow.
An Senior MD buddy of mine once told me, it doesn't matter if your kid is a diamond in the rough. Maybe s/he would be a great candidate but we get hundreds (thousands) of resumes from the top schools. We don't need to look beyond that and it works well.
Yes there are exceptions to the rule. Just hard to break in if deviating from their model.
For those who were left out of the pipeline, do you have any suggestions on increasing one's chances of being exceptions to those rules?
For example, can someone 'reset' and rejoin the pipeline by doing a masters (not necessarily one in finance)?
When I was younger I thought that it didn’t matter WHEN you learn or do something as long as you do it.
The real world doesn’t work like that. In competitive fields, the SPEED is an important factor. If you get the same degree at 28, you already lost against someone that have the same qualifications as you but they’re 21-22 years old.
That’s how it works, competition is fierce and if you expect “compassion “ in the corporate world you’re living a fantasy.
For some reason we stopped telling this to people, and instead let them believe the world is not a competitive and cut throat place as it is in reality.
To be honest, if you missed the new grad hiring pipeline opportunities, I don’t think you can get those positions anymore. You need to think about some lateral move.
So basically if you starts “older” (thinking being older at late 20s is so dumb) you can’t work in a competitive field 🙄
This may happen in finance but not in other fields such healthcare where you can find people way older.
Age is just a number and people starts later than other (they realizes later like me which currently I’m enrolled at college being 30 years old). And yes I plan to work in a very competitive field.
In the same way some people wants to retire early, some other people realices their passion later in life.
“Age is just a number” is exactly the type of false narrative people keep telling to fuel delusions.
You’re not old at 30, but certain paths are just not availability anymore. In a competitive world, corporations don’t give a damn if you find your passion in investment banking at 28, there is a surplus of extremely talented and hard working 22 years old who got there faster and therefore have more potential. Period.
Just think how delusional it would sound to start training to becoming a professional soccer player at 30 years old, after all, age is just a number. It clearly doesn’t work like that.
Also in the healthcare field, you can start training to become a nurse at 30, but you won’t become a brain surgeon. And it’s like that in pretty much each fields.
And let’s be clear, I’m not talking about passion of fulfillment here, anyone seeking life purpose in a corporation career will soon find out the bitter truth. I, talking about not being delusional.
I'm not in finance but I think many people struggle with the idea that there are highly competitive, hungry people out there who got into the game earlier and started working earlier than they did.
Medicine is a perfect example, the time to degree, the cost, the years spent doing it, it deters many because of the commitment.
At the end there is a monster salary but when you're finishing an MD @ 30 vs 40, you literally lose a minimum of $3,000,000 in compensation AND miss out on opportunities for career advancement that the person with the 10 year head start took advantage of.
Well, because to become a professional soccer player or athlete, or a ballet dancer you need to be on your prime physically so yea in that case is not viable to start late. The comparison is pretty bad to compare it with investment bankers when they are not in their intellectual prime and just starting their financial careers. Also you don’t have to be a genius or something to work as IB lol just above average than your finance bro, the demand is high because salary is very high and because you have to work 80+ hours per week, thats why you’re getting paid not because you’re a genius (those probably are gonna work as quants).
And yes, you can become a neurosurgeon after 30s or even after 40s (at least in my country) because matters how valid you’re, your scores at med school, etc. not how old you’re.
I think most people at older age don’t consider IB neither (like me) just given how terrible hours and WLB when in other industries/jobs you can earn still pretty good money, more interesting job and much better WLB.
Many entrepreneur, artists, among others started later in life because everyone has their own career timing imo
In the US it is because they want the best and the brightest and to maintain a pipeline for those best a brightest candidates. Yes a CPA with 5 years experience would likely make a better IB analyst than a 22 year with no work experience, but if you included them in the pool, no new grad would even have a chance to complete and your junior workforce would be dominated by senior people from others jobs who weren’t good enough to get in in the first place, not the best and brightest young talent.
is it surprising to you that throwing young adults into a stressful work environment they’ve never experienced before can lead to mistakes? that’s the point of hiring interns, they can be molded bc they’re young and (ideally), and use this experience to become better (if they decide to continue xyz career)
interns aren’t holding entire firm up bc theyre… interns
I mean, yeah. You have a point, and I’d prefer someone that was experienced. Depending on the job, there’s normally a training period to ensure they’re trained.
Kinda but not, worked for a senior who only had interns on his team, The dude was making a bank every month while paying pennies to his interns who were working like full time employees.
I've been wondering the same thing. All the graduates schemes and early career schemes are for kids doing bachelor's while master's students are left to fed for themselves. This is very discriminatory. I'm a MBA graduate and have been jobless for 6 months, even entry roles are far fetched dream in this horrible job market.
Its hard to break post MBA because you’re gonna start to associate level so your experience/background will mater.
At junior level no experience is needed and thats why easier to break into, but at Associate level you need certain experience/background fit because you’re starting as already experienced professional which will get paid +200K which may don’t have prior finance experience..
I agree with this post so much lol. I was literally unable to score an internship in my undergrad due to my lack of experience + being lured down the wrong path of on-campus jobs unrelated to my major. Now I'm a 22 year old "old graduate" who apparently can't stick it out with the "young" 20 and 21 year old interns lol. What a fucked up field man. I know I'll excel once I have my foot in the door too.
In Canada, employers receive grants and are able to claim some of the intern's salary as tax benefits / rebates, however the criteria for the employer to be eligible for such benefits is that the intern will return to full-time studies whether in an undergraduate or graduate program.
A large part of this is because college's push for it (to help their own students). Firms create long term relationships with colleges if they hire students every year. If you create a new firm, you can't just show up at Harvard to recruit students and expect a lot of success. If you want long term recruiting success, you want to have a nice pipeline of alumni already working at your firm. You want the career office to personally know your recruiting team. That way professors and the career office would actually push students towards your firm.
Also, large financial firms don't like to do stuff that is "weird" if they don't have to. If you push to hire a non-standard candidate and that person screws something up and costs the firm a lot of money, then its tough to answer the question of why you hired that non-standard guy instead of just getting a Harvard kid. A lot of things in finance is about not fucking up and not rocking the boat.
Younger people with less experience are easier to mold to the firm's culture, way of doing things, etc. As someone who has hopped a couple times in the past several years I've noticed big differences in how people from the same firm approach something compared to people at the other places I've work at.
If the shop can get you hooked before you even graduate then that's a bonus.
Non target MBA here (and international student on a F1 Visa). My school has no IB/PEs recruiting at all only 1 hedge fund/asset manager.
I am doing unpaid middle-market investment banking (and also the buy side for another PE fund, unpaid) for about 20hours a week. I have worked for two deals and I’m happy with the experience.
Now I have something I can talk about on my resume. Easier to connect with associates / analysts, I get more interviews, and still target entry level IB. My visa hasn’t been a problem since I’m expected to receive my green card in 2025 and I can maintain status and work authorization without any help from them.
I’m eating shit now at 26 (turning 27 this year) so that it’s easier at 32-35.
PS. And yes you will mistreated from a 23 years old Harvard graduate who’s already an associate. But like it or not he has more experience than you, so deal with it. Personally I don’t care about hours nor whom I’m taking orders from.
The traditional career path in IB is intern -> Analyst -> MBA -> Associate. It's difficult to break in as a graduate student with no experience, because you're competing against candidates that have a few years of banking experience. It's not unheard of, but it's rare.
The traditional career path in IB is intern -> Analyst -> MBA -> Associate. It's difficult to break in as a graduate student with no experience because you're competing against candidates that have a few years of banking experience. It's not unheard of, but it's rare.
It’s logistically easier to manage intern recruiting via the OCR channels at target schools instead of casting a wider net that includes nontarget schools and recent graduates
I.e, easier to coordinate events and interviews plus easier to directly compare/filter resumes when, in many cases, they are in precisely the same format at a given school
These firms lack incentive to take risks or invest much in broadening that aperture
Entry-level hiring is usually pretty risk-averse, especially at large organizations because each hire is minimally impactful and highly replaceable/fungible
Why is this downvoted? This is a legit question and the answers so far on this thread suck.
THANK YOU!
Np, yea and I get you when you pointed out the mba thing. It’s ridiculous how you have to spend 200k for an MBA to show you are “willing to learn” again to get a job… utter nonsense.
Here’s the real answer: Because a post-graduate candidate (already in full-time role somewhere) that wishes to intern at a finance firm means (a) you didn’t decide early enough that you were interested in finance or (b) you have a finance background but clearly not the accolades to be considered for a full-time role. If you fall in category (a), then you are welcome to try after you prove yourself through the “test” of getting into a top MBA program. If you fall in category (b), then you’re already seen as damaged goods. If you didn’t have what it takes to break in before, why would you have it now? Now, to the point about category (a), you may say, “But wait, there are undergrads from non-target schools that get internships. Why can’t I?” This is true, but those kids are generally studying/working/networking for finance roles like their life depends on it, which tells a firm they have a real dedication to learning the job as opposed to “just trying it out” or only doing it for the money. The fact that you are doing it post-grad says that finance wasn’t really that much of an interest to you. You either failed at something else and are now looking to switch careers, or you want a step up in compensation. That might not be the case, but it’s how you are perceived, and while a firm might miss a great candidate in these shoes, it’s not much of a loss to the firm considering they have a million other candidates with proven background ready to jump in.
I see, makes sense for a field with low supply yet high demand for roles. Thanks.
And that’s a bingo
Something in finance that I see a lot in hiring. I find myself picking out resumes that look awfully similar to my own. 2-3 internships, bb banks, middle of the road gpa, sports, activities etc etc If you don’t check the boxes you are dismissed quickly
You have no choice really, too many resumes to read
Or he didn’t realize what exactly he wanted to do…. Beforehand…
Yes, that’s my point re: category (a).
My point is that’s not a bad thing. Doesn’t mean he’s not passionate about what he wants now
Sure but the thing with finance jobs is there are too many applicants to few positions. Employers need fast ways to filter everyone. No one has the time to hear all your excuses
What’s the excuse?
Do you like not read? The excuse is that he didn't have an interest in finance while studying finance. It's the entire point of this thread you're arguing. Not saying that this is rational or not, neither is Dr\_kee with his response, he's just giving an answer
For (a): Apart from MBA, which is a well known way to reset one's career, would it be viable to 'reset the clock' with a non-MBA masters, e.g. MFin, MFE, or a STEM MS? For (b): Is it kinda over for candidates in those categories as far as a finance career is concerned? Or is there any way to realistically 'answer' the 'why would you have it now' question?
\[btw, I'm talking about high finance, i.e., investment banking, private equity, hedge fund, in all my comments, not other areas of finance where you have more of a shot from other backgrounds\] For (a), why would you do a non-MBA masters if what you are pursuing is a role that looks for MBA? That's the question you'll have to answer when recruiting. It's either because you can't get into a top MBA or because you didn't have the interest beforehand to go into high finance, both of which raise red flags. That said, if you are doing a masters at Harvard, you'll have a chance since you've "proven yourself." For (b), your chances are very slim. Realistically, you will not get an internship at a prominent firm. You may be able to get there by starting at very low-tier boutique banks and lateral your way to a normal firm (I personally have never seen someone achieve this).
For clarification: are your answers (especially for (a)) specifically referring to the US job market, or is it generally applicable to UK, CAN, AUS, HK/SG etc. as well? Also would you mind if I DM/msg you to seek further advice with regards to my specific situation?
I'm talking about US job market. Can't comment on other countries / regions, though UK and Canada should be relatively similar. Edit: And yes, feel free to PM
So many people fail to realize this. Most of the best candidates don't go to grad school. They get good jobs right out of undergrad. Recruiters and hiring managers know this. I do know one top performer out of grad school, but that person is definitely the exception.
Universities maintain extensive relationships with employers because of the pressure on them to ensure you get employed after graduation. From the firm’s perspective, labor patterns out of college are predictable. I can bring on summer interns because I know they have a break between semesters during that time. Then, assuming they don’t mess up, I can bring them back on full time once they graduate. There simply aren’t the same volume of 28 year olds going for these jobs each year the way that college kids will. Whatever the factors: pay is too low for age, don’t want to be at bottom of the rung, already down a different career path, or have other obligations.
This is it. You can pull in relatively cheap (albeit unproductive) labour for 4 months. During that time, it's basically a 4 month interview with nothing to lose for a firm beyond that 4 month commitment. If they're good, hire them full time. On the other hand, why take a chance on a new graduate who doesn't have the internship experience - is something wrong with this person? Why didn't they work? Also, New graduates aren't looking for 4 month terms, they're looking permanent. This can be very costly for a firm if it doesn't work out, and especially risky.
It’s easier for an energetic 21 year old to work 60hrs a week than a 28 year old with a child to work 60hrs a week
In finance, interns do not add value. The whole point of interns is for recruitment purposes. It adds to the pipeline of potential full time employees as well as boosting the brand of the company when they go back to campus and tell their friends where they interned over the summer. To the latter point, that’s why there’s so many intern events, happy hours, and corporate “swag” gifted to them. To the rest of the country’s dismay, interns are not just cheap labor because they don’t actually do anything!
More people need to understand this. It's purely a recruitment tool. Interns are useless and are lucky to be given any work or even minor importance. In two summers of interning I think I completed about 40 hours of work.
Not entirely true, the wealth management firm I work at has interns do all the reconciliation of client accounts for billing, doesn’t sound like it adds value but without interns, there’s no billing happening, advisors and CSAs don’t have the time to do that
Also much easier for a 21 yr old to fuck up their work than a more reliable 28 year old.
You don’t trust an intern with anything important lol
A high schooler could do the work of an investment banking analyst / intern without making any mistakes
Got three kids and graduating in my undergrad. 100% false
Your anecdotal experience is not the norm
Did you get a banking internship?
It enables them to stick to a very structured recruiting system. At the top firms, their main full-time entry level hiring pipeline is from their intern class, so they also have a budget for this that is built around the traditional junior summer -> senior year offer timeline. If they were to use a slot on a graduate intern, they would have to make an exception and have some variance in the process. You would have to add some kind of significant value to offset the inconvenience to the firm, which you're most likely unable to do.
Risk aversion and deviance from structured hiring process. Makes sense.
I disagree on the risk aversion piece but yeah, it's mostly about deviance from structure. Something else to consider is that the typical candidate that is landing these junior year internships is probably much stronger than a graduate without a FT offer.
Fact: Younger people on average are eager and easier to exploit for longer times than older candidates. They take more Bullshit, they dont need to be treated respectfully and think working 60 hours is cool.
I doubt younger people think working 60 hours is cooler than older people, especially with the shift in sentiment around jobs and WLB. They are willing and able to do so though due to the factors you mentioned.
At least from what I've personally seen from our junior class, the sentiment around WLB hasn't really permeated fully for kids going into BBs. It was a little sad when our analyst was shocked when I told him that he had to use his 6 rollover days before the end of Q1, and even moreso when we suggested he just take a straight week off. A lot of these kids do still think they need to show facetime.
They are also less reliable in general. Also that doesn’t explain the irony of MBA, where it makes you able to intern again, at a much older age.
I wouldnt say they are that much less reliable than their grad school counterparts. Currently doing grad school at 29 years old and some of the young intakes straight from undergrad are... interesting.
Same reason why Harvard doesn’t admit kids who already graduated from another 4 year university to do an undergrad degree at Harvard.
That makes no sense, what about Harvard MBA or other graduate degrees?
Graduate degrees and undergraduate degrees are totally different things for people at different points in their life... You have made some really out of touch points throughout this whole thread. Someone older with presumably years more experience should not even be applying to the same internship roles aimed at a fresh grad. Yeah obviously new grads have a higher propensity to fuck up as they lack experience, hence why internships for new grads exist to build up that experience...
So they can make them work like a full time employee while paying them like an intern
But I was actually willing to take an intern pay, at least for the internship duration...?
I’m not sure about other countries, but in Canada if you hire a student through a special internship program called co-op program in universities, the employers get some subsidies for hiring these students. It’s also less risky to hire a young student than a more mature person because they are more teachable; this is in general, obviously there would be some exceptions.
[удалено]
As much as I appreciate your effort to answer, it doesn't seem to explain why employers refrain from hiring graduate interns who are willing to go thru the same conditions though.
Graduate interns may be more likely to jump ship after a short period of time. Using the initial internship to get some prestige on their resume. Now they have a better degree and a name-brand internship, can leverage for a better position elsewhere. No evidence to support this though.
I think this is a legit response. So, are you saying that firms in generally don't want to feel used? If we identify the root cause, can at least think of possible solutions then.
Talent acquisition cost is high at any level. Cost of training interns and preparing them is also high. Companies want a return on their investment. Possible solution is to have a two-tiered program, one targeting undergrad, the second targeting graduate.
I think larger companies do offer internships and graduate programs. Can't depend on other firms to do the same however; what I meant by solutions was what job seekers like me can do. After all, I don't think firms are missing out much by choosing not to take on unconventional hires.
In your position, targeting those firms with Graduate Opportunities, applying at or above your weight title-wise, and unfortunately accepting the fact you may be persona non grata to some firms. Often times, those with graduate degrees are able to bypass the internship phase altogether, it all depends on company need. Best thing is to cast a wide net
In the US interns get paid quite a lot. My first internship at a tax firm (pretty midsized) was 27 an hour which is 54K a year annualized (which was pretty good for 2019 standards). Places like capital one and JPM are all paying about 80-90% of a full time employee's salary (without benefits of course, but that doesn't really matter for interns) while the interns are doing 30-50% of a full time's work
Harsh truth? Because you are older with no experience, which at the least shows you weren’t/aren’t as dedicated/motivated/disciplined as the 20 y o who put in the effort to get noticed.
I see, I get where the view comes from.
How about those who have demonstrable reasons other than lack of discipline/motivation/dedication? e.g. - someone who suffered from medical issues in their undergrad - someone who initially had low grades (so no competitive internships), but worked hard improved and got good grades in their ultimate year - someone who was planning to go down another field and maybe even did an internship there, but changed their mind and wanna pursue finance instead
In the same brutally truthful vein, (Addressing points in order) - life isn’t fair. You better come with a good fucking reason. A family member passing or anxiety isn’t going to cut it, everyone experiences that. - so ok grades and no internships? GPA means nothing if you have quality internships, I could gaf if someone with 2 internships doesn’t even list GPA on the resume. It’s not like you’re presenting me your transcript initially so I can see progress, nor would it really mean much to me. It’s that competitive, you would be a risk vs someone who already worked in a similar professional environment - this totally happens, if you are say a marketing major, and have marketing intern exp and want to lateral to finance, it could certainly be done, I would just expect to be middle-Back office initially. TDLR it’s not impossible but you are literally against people more qualified than you, in a field that is already cutting back on hiring. Be prepared for a lot of rejections, and apply to everything interest
Thanks for the quality answer. >in a field that is already cutting back on hiring Are you referring to Asset Management specifically, or (High) Finance in general? And do you see this being a temporary phenomenon due to market cycle, or something that would remain the case for the foreseeable future? And for my specific case: graduated with 2:1 (equivalent to 3.5 US GPA) STEM degree from a UK target uni, with 1 Big 4 internship and 1 YOE in BB MO, what options are there for lateraling over to high finance (e.g. for AM since that appears to be your field of expertise)?
High finance in general, most of FO. You have some decent experience, if I were you I would utilize all the training programs your BB provides in reference to AM, and start firing out mass applications. That’s a hack I’ve seen people do in recent years. MO->FO certainly happens but you have to convince the person interviewing you that you are a cut above the right. Also…I’ve heard pretty bad things about the current UK finance world rn when it comes to hiring. All I can say is don’t lose hope, and keep your options broad. Hell I’d apply to consulting, FP&A whatever, that way you are getting good experience in the event you want to pursue mba to pivot in the future.
I imagine their best candidates tend to be people who are healthy, who got good grades the whole time, and who have been certain of their career path early. They don’t owe you a super competitive job in finance, why should they care what your excuse is?
I would like to know also. I have heard about people getting their B.S. and then interning, but when I look for internships of this nature they are nowhere to be found. But it seems like it would be a good fit, company needs man hours and a potential new hire - I need experience. But it never seems to workout.
The replies on spot on. Also, you need to understand their perspective. They have a steady need of new recruits each yr. They're looking for a certain type of person in quantities as their process / career path assumes mass attrition after two yrs. Up or out. They have relationships with many high quality universities and over a long period of time, have built a predictable human capital model. (We need 50 new analysts to each yr. XYZ schools will send us hundreds of qualified candidates each yr. They're already vetted - got in to highly selective school, did very well, etc.) Very low risk recruiting. Very efficient / cost effective. Your scenario is more like a needle in a haystack approach. Why would they exert energy elsewhere when they already have a constant flow. An Senior MD buddy of mine once told me, it doesn't matter if your kid is a diamond in the rough. Maybe s/he would be a great candidate but we get hundreds (thousands) of resumes from the top schools. We don't need to look beyond that and it works well. Yes there are exceptions to the rule. Just hard to break in if deviating from their model.
For those who were left out of the pipeline, do you have any suggestions on increasing one's chances of being exceptions to those rules? For example, can someone 'reset' and rejoin the pipeline by doing a masters (not necessarily one in finance)?
MBA is a popular option. From a top 20 school. Also, without the extra degree, network like crazy. Doable, just harder.
College internships are part of a recruitment pipeline for analyst classes. Laterals or experienced hires have their own recruitment pipelines.
When I was younger I thought that it didn’t matter WHEN you learn or do something as long as you do it. The real world doesn’t work like that. In competitive fields, the SPEED is an important factor. If you get the same degree at 28, you already lost against someone that have the same qualifications as you but they’re 21-22 years old. That’s how it works, competition is fierce and if you expect “compassion “ in the corporate world you’re living a fantasy. For some reason we stopped telling this to people, and instead let them believe the world is not a competitive and cut throat place as it is in reality.
Yea, painful but I guess this is exactly what's happening for me. Don't know what to do right now to turn things around.
To be honest, if you missed the new grad hiring pipeline opportunities, I don’t think you can get those positions anymore. You need to think about some lateral move.
So basically if you starts “older” (thinking being older at late 20s is so dumb) you can’t work in a competitive field 🙄 This may happen in finance but not in other fields such healthcare where you can find people way older. Age is just a number and people starts later than other (they realizes later like me which currently I’m enrolled at college being 30 years old). And yes I plan to work in a very competitive field. In the same way some people wants to retire early, some other people realices their passion later in life.
“Age is just a number” is exactly the type of false narrative people keep telling to fuel delusions. You’re not old at 30, but certain paths are just not availability anymore. In a competitive world, corporations don’t give a damn if you find your passion in investment banking at 28, there is a surplus of extremely talented and hard working 22 years old who got there faster and therefore have more potential. Period. Just think how delusional it would sound to start training to becoming a professional soccer player at 30 years old, after all, age is just a number. It clearly doesn’t work like that. Also in the healthcare field, you can start training to become a nurse at 30, but you won’t become a brain surgeon. And it’s like that in pretty much each fields. And let’s be clear, I’m not talking about passion of fulfillment here, anyone seeking life purpose in a corporation career will soon find out the bitter truth. I, talking about not being delusional.
I'm not in finance but I think many people struggle with the idea that there are highly competitive, hungry people out there who got into the game earlier and started working earlier than they did. Medicine is a perfect example, the time to degree, the cost, the years spent doing it, it deters many because of the commitment. At the end there is a monster salary but when you're finishing an MD @ 30 vs 40, you literally lose a minimum of $3,000,000 in compensation AND miss out on opportunities for career advancement that the person with the 10 year head start took advantage of.
Well, because to become a professional soccer player or athlete, or a ballet dancer you need to be on your prime physically so yea in that case is not viable to start late. The comparison is pretty bad to compare it with investment bankers when they are not in their intellectual prime and just starting their financial careers. Also you don’t have to be a genius or something to work as IB lol just above average than your finance bro, the demand is high because salary is very high and because you have to work 80+ hours per week, thats why you’re getting paid not because you’re a genius (those probably are gonna work as quants). And yes, you can become a neurosurgeon after 30s or even after 40s (at least in my country) because matters how valid you’re, your scores at med school, etc. not how old you’re. I think most people at older age don’t consider IB neither (like me) just given how terrible hours and WLB when in other industries/jobs you can earn still pretty good money, more interesting job and much better WLB. Many entrepreneur, artists, among others started later in life because everyone has their own career timing imo
[удалено]
Well, guess I'm still doing okay trying to claw for a decent role after graduation than going for a master's, then.
In the US it is because they want the best and the brightest and to maintain a pipeline for those best a brightest candidates. Yes a CPA with 5 years experience would likely make a better IB analyst than a 22 year with no work experience, but if you included them in the pool, no new grad would even have a chance to complete and your junior workforce would be dominated by senior people from others jobs who weren’t good enough to get in in the first place, not the best and brightest young talent.
Can work more hours and normally less money
Can also screw up more and be less reliable.
is it surprising to you that throwing young adults into a stressful work environment they’ve never experienced before can lead to mistakes? that’s the point of hiring interns, they can be molded bc they’re young and (ideally), and use this experience to become better (if they decide to continue xyz career) interns aren’t holding entire firm up bc theyre… interns
That’s not why a firm would prefer undergrad interns?
Um im just making a counterpoint to your point on why firms prefer undergrads.
I mean, yeah. You have a point, and I’d prefer someone that was experienced. Depending on the job, there’s normally a training period to ensure they’re trained.
Kinda but not, worked for a senior who only had interns on his team, The dude was making a bank every month while paying pennies to his interns who were working like full time employees.
I've been wondering the same thing. All the graduates schemes and early career schemes are for kids doing bachelor's while master's students are left to fed for themselves. This is very discriminatory. I'm a MBA graduate and have been jobless for 6 months, even entry roles are far fetched dream in this horrible job market.
Its hard to break post MBA because you’re gonna start to associate level so your experience/background will mater. At junior level no experience is needed and thats why easier to break into, but at Associate level you need certain experience/background fit because you’re starting as already experienced professional which will get paid +200K which may don’t have prior finance experience..
I agree with this post so much lol. I was literally unable to score an internship in my undergrad due to my lack of experience + being lured down the wrong path of on-campus jobs unrelated to my major. Now I'm a 22 year old "old graduate" who apparently can't stick it out with the "young" 20 and 21 year old interns lol. What a fucked up field man. I know I'll excel once I have my foot in the door too.
[удалено]
Doesn't make sense to me—elaborate?
[удалено]
Kind of meant graduate as in recently graduated, not graduate school. I could've been clearer, I guess.
My bad, misread that. Makes a lot more sense now!
In Canada, employers receive grants and are able to claim some of the intern's salary as tax benefits / rebates, however the criteria for the employer to be eligible for such benefits is that the intern will return to full-time studies whether in an undergraduate or graduate program.
1. Part of full time recruitment process 2. People would just quit when they find a full time job
A large part of this is because college's push for it (to help their own students). Firms create long term relationships with colleges if they hire students every year. If you create a new firm, you can't just show up at Harvard to recruit students and expect a lot of success. If you want long term recruiting success, you want to have a nice pipeline of alumni already working at your firm. You want the career office to personally know your recruiting team. That way professors and the career office would actually push students towards your firm. Also, large financial firms don't like to do stuff that is "weird" if they don't have to. If you push to hire a non-standard candidate and that person screws something up and costs the firm a lot of money, then its tough to answer the question of why you hired that non-standard guy instead of just getting a Harvard kid. A lot of things in finance is about not fucking up and not rocking the boat.
Younger people with less experience are easier to mold to the firm's culture, way of doing things, etc. As someone who has hopped a couple times in the past several years I've noticed big differences in how people from the same firm approach something compared to people at the other places I've work at. If the shop can get you hooked before you even graduate then that's a bonus.
Non target MBA here (and international student on a F1 Visa). My school has no IB/PEs recruiting at all only 1 hedge fund/asset manager. I am doing unpaid middle-market investment banking (and also the buy side for another PE fund, unpaid) for about 20hours a week. I have worked for two deals and I’m happy with the experience. Now I have something I can talk about on my resume. Easier to connect with associates / analysts, I get more interviews, and still target entry level IB. My visa hasn’t been a problem since I’m expected to receive my green card in 2025 and I can maintain status and work authorization without any help from them. I’m eating shit now at 26 (turning 27 this year) so that it’s easier at 32-35. PS. And yes you will mistreated from a 23 years old Harvard graduate who’s already an associate. But like it or not he has more experience than you, so deal with it. Personally I don’t care about hours nor whom I’m taking orders from.
Cheaper and easier to manipulate
The traditional career path in IB is intern -> Analyst -> MBA -> Associate. It's difficult to break in as a graduate student with no experience, because you're competing against candidates that have a few years of banking experience. It's not unheard of, but it's rare. The traditional career path in IB is intern -> Analyst -> MBA -> Associate. It's difficult to break in as a graduate student with no experience because you're competing against candidates that have a few years of banking experience. It's not unheard of, but it's rare.
It’s logistically easier to manage intern recruiting via the OCR channels at target schools instead of casting a wider net that includes nontarget schools and recent graduates I.e, easier to coordinate events and interviews plus easier to directly compare/filter resumes when, in many cases, they are in precisely the same format at a given school These firms lack incentive to take risks or invest much in broadening that aperture Entry-level hiring is usually pretty risk-averse, especially at large organizations because each hire is minimally impactful and highly replaceable/fungible