Hey there,
Congrats!
The case article specifically answers what is meant by depth and how to perform well in the quant section:
1. Framework
Another common misconception between McKinsey and other interviews relates to the structuring part of the case. The framework derived for McKinsey vs. a framework created for other consulting firms is usually quite different.
At the core, McKinsey wants to see creative ideas communicated in a structured manner, the more exhaustive the better.
Your goal should be to come up with a tailored and creative answer that fits the question. The framework should - broadly speaking - follow these three characteristics:
- broad
- deep
- insightful / creative
At the lowest level of your structure, you need to showcase concrete ideas, qualify your answer with practical examples and more details.
While for BCG, Bain, etc. you need to present your framework relatively swiftly within 1-3 minutes, to then dive deeper into the buckets where you think the solution of the case is buried, for McKinsey, there is no single solution (as discussed above).
In a McKinsey interview, you can take up to 5-8 minutes to present your structure, your qualification, and hypotheses. This is due to the interviewer-led format that McKinsey employs. The interviewer will only ask 'what else' if you
- haven't gone broad or deep enough
- did not explain your ideas well enough for them to stand out (again, you have time here)
The firm wants to see exhaustive and creative approaches to specific problems, which more often than not do not fit into the classic case frameworks that were en vogue 10 years ago...
Again, this only applies if everything you say
- adds value to the problem analysis
- is MECE
- is well qualified
- includes a detailed discussion of your hypotheses at the end
The difference in format and way of answering a question is the reason why I recommend preparing very differently for McKinsey interviews vs. other consultancies.
2. Math
As for math questions, usually, there are answers which are objectively correct (not always 100% the same since some candidates simplify or round differently – which is ok), and others that are wrong, due to issues with the
- calculation approach
- calculation itself
Make sure to take plenty of time to think about your approach before communicating it and then taking enough time to calculate.
The main mistake I have seen with 100s of McKinsey candidates is that they don't take enough time in this section and come up with faulty approaches or inaccurate calculations.
3. Differences in final round vs. first round
The differences between a McKinsey first and second round are usually minuscule and often overstated by people who have no experience with the McKinsey hiring process (be careful about some tips in this thread). There are many more similarities between the two than there are differences since the interviewer guidelines are the same, as are the format and the evaluation metrics.
Second-round interviews are not always given by ‘’owners of the firm''. Also, I want to highlight that the PEI is exactly of the same importance in both rounds…
What are the main differences?
1. There can be a focus on areas where you performed worse in your first round, thereby leaving out other parts of the case completely. If you felt weak in certain areas or received specific feedback, put extra effort to work on those.
2. The interviews could (not have) be more freestyle (e.g., interviewers giving you less time for brainstorming, etc.)
Have a look at these two articles below if you want to learn more or reach out for a session. I have specialized in McKinsey interviews as you can see from the success stories in my profile.
Case: https://www.preplounge.com/en/mckinsey-interview)
PEI: https://www.preplounge.com/en/mckinsey-pei)
Cheers,
Florian