one of my friends recently interviewed at goldman for an equity related position. She got kicked out after four round of interviews. The first guy interviewed her asking some descent questions, the second guy only asked her questions about previous jobs, the third guy only asked her three brain teasers until she got one trivial point wrong, the fourth guy asked fixed income problems (which is not this position is about and not her strength, and she managed to get most right except the final structured credit product) and brain teasers. The third and forth guys walked out of interview room laughing at her – however she didn’t do too bad at all. She thinks it seems some interviews didn’t like the idea of working with a woman and would just abuse their power to veto her. Is that true for goldman now? I interviewed at Gold man before and failed at last step – MD doesn’t like me. But during the process, I was asked one brain teaser, one finance and one math with every interviewer. I got vetoed without bad feelings. But my friend was visually shaking many days after this. Did this happen because of bad market condition or some group of Goldman is like this?
Or maybe she exaggerated the situation badly because her dreams of being Goldman material are shattered forever…
Just make sure she keeps the interviewer’s names and contact information for when she hits it really big somewhere else and she can call up and rub it in their faces. “How does it make you feel that you passed up an opportunity to work with a legend.”
Meh she just experienced life. Some people are dicks.
Stupid, is that girl you?
Is it fun to work with people like that?
exactly, you don’t want to work with idiots like that anyway, but this doesn’t sound very goldman culture like to me, so may not be a representative experience
There is something funny, or “sour grape-ish” about her story. That doesn’t sound very Goldman like at all and I would be shocked if she didn’t inject some serious exaggerations in that little tale. First off, the firm is rather professional and prides itself on presenting that to the outside world if not in practice. Secondly, some pretty heavy hitting individuals at Goldman are women, e.g. Laura Conigliaro and formerly Abby JC.
definitely not a representative experience, but a good story nonetheless. i give it an 8 out of 10.
I’ve interviewed at Goldman for several positions. To be honest, I think GS is a bunch of pricks. They called my agency complaining about me and etc.
i just got dinged from GS today!
I had a good experience with them. Keep your resume updated on their site. I got a couple calls in the past year based on my record that I maintain in their system.
ouch what department?
Ass pennies.
My worst interview ever was with GS…prickly asses
No one said they aren’t “pricks” in their process because they certainly are. Remember you’re the one that needs them, and need to convince them the opposite is true. Also, it’s a tough environment with a lot of pressure so yes, they’ll put the heat up; but what was described here doesn’t add up. Again, yes they can be “pricks” but their not “douches” who leave the room giggling, etc.
I dont know about equity, but in IT this is the usual. And we do ask Black-Scholes, Statistics and other derivatives questions along with brain teasers. Usually 5-8 people interview a candidate (excluding HR) P.S NO I dont work at GS
If anyone laughed at me in an interview. We. No they would have an immediate personal safety problem.
Mr.Good.Guy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If anyone laughed at me in an interview. We. No > they would have an immediate personal safety > problem. yeah whatever
I know someone (an idiot) that interviewed at GS and got laughed at… but not without reason… This guy got a first class honours, but only by blindly memorising textbooks (that is not sour grapes, I got a first and graduated above him). Anyway, asked “do you read the financial press?”, the moron replied “No, I read the Financial Times.” (Not intended as a joke). Another highlight from the same interview was when he was asked whether he preferred keynesian or monetarist economics. The guy couldn’t muster anything at all, and instead tried wasting time with comments like “obviously, there are pros and cons to each approach, which makes answering this question difficult without serious thought…” Idiot.