Generalist vs Finance Industry track

Hi there,

It really depends on what you're looking to get out of consulting.

If you join the generalist track, you'll have the opportunity to explore a wider range of industries and functions, which can be valuable if you're looking to broaden your experience and keep your future career options open.

If you join as a financial services or risk expert, you'll likely be staffed more often on risk management, finance, regulatory, or banking-related projects. This allows you to leverage your 8 years of experience more directly, build credibility faster, and potentially create value from day one.

Neither path is inherently better—the right choice depends on whether your priority is to diversify your experience or deepen and capitalize on your existing expertise.

Best,

Anna

Hi there,

With 8 years of experience, I would not assume that you necessarily need to enter through an expert track. It is a meaningful amount of experience, but still within the range where firms can consider you for a post-MBA / experienced-hire generalist role, depending on the office and how they assess your background.

I would think about it this way:

• If your main objective is to get into MBB or a Tier 2 firm and you are genuinely open to broader strategy work, I would probably explore the generalist track first. Your financial-services background can still be a strong asset, but you are not limiting yourself only to roles specifically requiring risk expertise. In practice, that may give you access to a broader set of opportunities.
• If you really want to stay close to risk / financial services and build your career around that expertise, then the expert track can make more sense. You would be leveraging your 8 years much more directly, but naturally the number of highly specific openings will usually be narrower than for generalist recruiting.
• I would also compare entry level, not only track. Ask each firm how they would position your profile as a generalist versus as an expert. The answer can differ quite a lot across firms and offices.

One additional advantage of entering as a generalist is that you do not lose your financial-services background. Once inside, you can still gradually position yourself toward banking, risk, finance-related or other FS projects if that is where you find you add the most value.

So I would not see this as “8 years of finance = expert track.” The more important question is whether you want to broaden away from your current specialization or deepen it. If consulting itself is the priority and you want maximum flexibility, I would at least explore the generalist route seriously before narrowing yourself to expert roles.

Best,
Carlos

Hi there,

With 8 years in one functional area, I would not treat the two tracks as equally open. At that seniority firms rarely hire a pure generalist, so your risk background is the part of the profile that carries the most weight, and I would build the application around it.

The caveat is that expert recruiting is more ad hoc than the standard track. Those roles open when a specific office or practice has a need, so the work is to identify the financial institutions practice in the offices you are targeting, speak to partners and recruiters there before you apply, and secure a referral.

One thing worth adding to what Carlos said: ask each firm at what level they would position you, not only on which track. At MBB the rule is to adjust seniority downward when hiring from outside, and starting one level below is usually the healthier outcome anyway, since it gives you room to learn the firm's way of working before pushing for the next step.

I hope this helps

Best,

Franco

With eight years in financial risk, you have a credible case for the expert track, but that doesn't automatically make it the right choice.

If you want to deepen your expertise in risk and financial services, the expert track makes sense. If you want broader industry and functional exposure, explore the generalist track.

I would test both routes with the specific firms and offices you are targeting. Ask recruiters how they would position your profile, because the answer may differ by firm, office, and current hiring need.

Ultimately, you're making a life-changing career decision. It may be worth spending a few hundred dollars to get that decision right by working with a career / case coach.

Hey there :)

With 8 years of middle office risk management experience, I’d position yourself primarily as a financial services expert rather than trying to present yourself as a pure generalist. Your industry expertise can be a real advantage, particularly for banking, risk, regulatory and financial services projects. At the same time, make sure your CV and interview preparation demonstrate transferable consulting skills such as problem solving, analytics, stakeholder management and structured thinking. You can always work across other industries later, but I’d use your existing expertise as a strength when entering consulting.

best, Alessa :)

Hi there, 

What makes a track more 'right' than another has to do with your ambitions, background, etc. 

If you're keen to work in the same topical area as before, then it makes sense to apply as a specialist. There you will also have a stronger value prop because you're bringing in specific expertise. 

However, if you'd rather try out something different and want exposure to other industries, then it would make sense to go for the generalist track. 

In fact, if your objective is rather to join the industry, you might want to have a blended approach where depending on fit you might apply for specialist roles with some firms and generalist with others. 

Best,
Cristian

Given eight years in risk management, financial services track is the stronger play, not generalist. Here's the thing, firms hiring at your seniority want depth they can sell to clients immediately, and your background gives you exactly that story.

Generalist tracks are built for people without a clear domain, that's not you. Going generalist actually wastes your strongest asset and makes you compete with people who have broader but shallower profiles.

Lead with financial services expertise, risk specifically, and let generalist skills come through in how you talk about the work, not as your positioning.