A good Excel template + an underlying strategy allow you to pass the first game in 15-18 minutes instead of 28+ minutes. The skills that are tested in the Solve, especially the Ecosystem Game have very little in common with the tangible skills that are evaluated during the McK Case Interview...

Florian, if McKinsey wanted candidates to solve the game with cheat sheets, they would have issued them themselves, not created a market opportunity for coaches to sell them.

Interesting train of thought there for several reasons. Last time I checked, McKinsey and any other consulting firm are not overly fond of professional case coaches and preparation either. Secondly, once you decided to become a coach, was it not your goal and responsibility to help your clients throughout the whole process? It seems a bit odd to help with cracking cases and PEI stories (which is arguably the same as helping with the Solve Game), yet not consider any other obstacle in the process for your clients. If you don't want to give candidates the best chance to get into the firms throughout the process, why even bother? Lastly, you make it seem like Excel Solvers are worthless when in fact they can reduce the time for the first game by almost 50% AND help people systematically check their answers. I wanted to counter that misinformation.

There are plenty of candidates who pass without Excel Solvers in the same way there are plenty of candidates who pass without coaching. The difference is that case and PEI coaching actually help candidates develop skills, whereas Excel Solvers do (part of) the job on their behalf without improving their skills (and to the disadvantage of other candidates who do not have these Excel Solvers). Helping candidates with the test should mean training them on the core skills they need to succeed in the game. Not giving them a template to shortcut the actual assessment.

1+3. That's a nonsensical statement. Using the same argument you could also say that some people do not need to prepare for case interviews because it is possible to pass without preparation (yes, there are about 0.01% of naturals who manage to do that). Just from the numbers: Having a solver plus a structured problem-solving technique that helps with the approach to the game leads to a higher success rate for candidates than without having these tools at your disposal. Same as for case interviews. Working with a good coach who provides you with the right tools and techniques gets you a much better outcome than without. 2. If you are training the core skills and a proper approach for the case and PEI/fit, what you are doing, in essence, is also working with a lot of shortcuts, tricks, and tools in problem-solving and storytelling that would not be available for someone who has not worked for a specific firm or in consulting at all. Ideally, you should know what the firms are looking for and you prepare your candidates accordingly. Providing them with a structured approach to the different elements of case and fit that focuses on the right content elements, thinking techniques, and delivery (based on tools such as the real evaluation criteria and real scoring sheets - again not available to the outside world) is no different than an Excel tool for a game that facilitates problem-solving. As for the game itself, even McKinsey is moving away from this type of assessment and getting back to the roots of the PST with the introduction of the Redrock game. The latter is something that can be prepared for since it focuses on data analysis and computations (same as a case interview). However, curious how you are preparing your clients for the eco game because there is a 70-80% rejection rate, and the skills for this game are too far removed from any skill-building efforts. You completely missed all three points of my rebuttal. I'll leave it at that...