MBB Assessment Tests

At some point, repeated failure is a signal. Six attempts with no interview means you are below the bar as currently measured.

That does not mean you lack potential, and it does not mean you could not be a good consultant. It means that, today, you do not meet the screening bar these firms use. MBB does not optimise for fairness. It optimises for fast elimination.

The assessments are not testing “consulting” in a broad sense. They test speed, accuracy, cognitive discipline, and the ability to apply simple heuristics under time pressure. Those are trainable skills. Many people who pass were not naturally good at them.

So the choice is binary.

Either you treat this like any other performance gap and train deliberately and narrowly for the test until you clear the bar.

Or you stop applying, because repeating the same process without changing capability is just noise.

Hi there, 

I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that “consulting isn’t for me” based on this alone.

If you’ve never reached interviews, the most likely bottleneck is CV screening, not the assessment games. At MBB, your resume is the primary filter: strong academics, relevant internships, and meaningful out-of-curriculum achievements are what get you into the interview process in the first place. The online assessments usually come after you’ve already passed that initial screen.

On the assessment games themselves: they test a very narrow slice of skills (basic analytics, pattern recognition, decision-making under constraints). They are not a good proxy for core consulting abilities like structuring, communication, or problem-solving in real cases. Many strong candidates don’t find these games intuitive and still perform very well in interviews.

After multiple applications, what’s worth reflecting on is:

• Whether your CV clearly signals excellence (grades, academic rigor)
• Whether your experience is framed in a consulting-relevant way (impact, ownership, problem-solving)
• Whether you’ve built enough distinctive signals beyond academics (internships, leadership, competitive achievements)

Before giving up, I’d strongly recommend getting external feedback on your CV and positioning. In many cases, it’s not about capability, it’s about whether your profile translates clearly on paper.

Wow. That's commitment. 

I refuse to believe in this idea that 'it's just not for you'. 

Something isn't for you if you decide it isn't for you. But if you've kept trying for 6 years, that's a clear sign you want it to be your thing. So you shouldn't give up. Having tried so many times is a clear sign you care. 

But what have your tries looked like? Feel free to drop me a message on this to clarify. Because if you've been sending a CV that's not that well written I'm not surprised it didn't pass screening. Or there could be dozens of other things that might've gone wrong. 

Did you work with a coach? Did you have anybody guiding you through the process?

Best,
Cristian

It’s completely understandable why you feel this way. Six attempts across the major firms, resulting in zero interview invites, feels like a definitive, structural message, and it absolutely sucks to be stuck at that first gate.

Here is the reality of how the recruiting machine uses these tools: the BCG Solve, McKinsey PSG, or Bain SAT are not designed to test holistic strategic thinking or leadership potential. They are designed to be cheap, scalable filters for two critical and non-negotiable analytical capabilities: speed and error rate management. On the job, the expectation for basic numerical processing and data synthesis is near-zero error, especially under tight deadlines. The assessment is merely a highly efficient proxy for measuring this specific discipline under pressure.

Failing six times suggests your issue is not necessarily lack of intellectual horsepower, but lack of process mastery specific to these types of high-stakes, timed exams. The firms set a brutally high cutoff—often 85-90th percentile globally—because they know they have 10,000 other highly qualified candidates who can hit that technical benchmark. They are not judging your capacity for strategy, but your current ability to navigate their filtering process.

If you still want this, you should absolutely pivot your strategy. Stop applying until you can reliably score in the top decile on rigorous third-party practice simulations that mimic the structure and timing of the official tests. View the test not as a measure of consulting skill, but as a measurable, trainable technical hurdle. If you master the mechanics and clear that required technical bar, the firms will re-evaluate you instantly.

Hope this provides clarity.