I've been prepping heavily with friends from McKinsey and they've drilled in me the importance of going in depth explaining your framework/so-what's. Recently, however, I did a case with a BCG'er and they said that I was spending too much time explaining my framework's so-what's.
Is there an actual substantive difference in the depth you're supposed to go in your initial framework between McKinsey and Bain/BCG or is it more likely that I was just too verbose in this particular case?
Hi,
There is no difference between BCG and McKinsey. However, there is a difference between the interviewers, since the case interview process is not 100% objective. But indeed, many candidates overinvest in presenting the structure. Try to think about the following things:
Best
Hi there,
Ther eis no substantive difference across companies, but there is a substantive difference across cases.
Some cases warrant a longer explanation, some don't. There isn't a hard and fast rule for timing.
What you do want is a concise, well-summarized explanation of how you're going to break down the problem, why, and what's important to look at. What you do not want is a laundry list of a dozen random ideas.
Keep to a theme, stay concise, and read your interviewer's body language (yes, even in videoconferencing), to see when you need to get to the point!
Hi, I confirm no differences in cases and assessment
Best
Antonello
Hi,
Essentially I don't think there is a difference between McKinsey and BCG, I interviewed for both and even McKinsey do Candidate led interview in later stage..
Bottom line, you need to practice explaining your structure efficiently and strike the balance on how detail it should be.
Best,
Iman
Hi,
The reason why the feedback from your friends was different lies in cases, not in the firms, as they don't differ much. The case determines the time which needs to be devoted to it and the depth of your framework.
So keep going and let me know if you need any help.
Good luck!
GB
