Screening Interviews: Personality or Substantive Responses? Forum

[heavoldgotjuice]

Just curious as to the general consensus on screeners leading to callbacks.

Do interviewers look more for personable/charming people (assuming they have good grades) or cogent, thoughtful responses?

Does your opinion change in regards to transfers?


Note - I am asking you to choose one or the other because I understand it is likely a mix of both, but which of the two seems to have a stronger weight, even if marginal

[Mal Reynolds]

Why can't they look for both. One informs the other

[TEIAM]

Why can't they look for both. One informs the other

I'm going to disagree to an extent. You could have all the "right" answers and still have a dud personality. While the socially awkward will likely be disadvantaged in the former category, they can practice their way to giving strong answers. You don't have to be an intellectual to succeed but I do believe a balance is ideal throughout the entire process.

Oh, and grades help but don't do it all. I know folk at the top of the class that haven't heard back from any firms yet.

[sundance95]

False, meet dichotomy

[moonman157]

False, meet dichotomy

Exactly. They go hand in hand. What they're looking for is a good conversation that makes them feel good about having to potentially spend lots of time with that person. Thoughtful, intelligent answers keep a conversation going and interesting. The people who are giving poor answers to questions probably aren't coming across the best in terms of their personality or likability.

[heavoldgotjuice]

I'm sure we've all met the attractive male/female that is saying nothing, and also the unattractive male/female that is saying a whole-lot-of-something... we typically choose one over the other in certain circumstances ... I'm asking you to analogize this situation to that, in a sense


1.) big smile, makes jokes, easy-going, but didn't do much research or have brilliant responses
2.) no smile, awkward, wet-palmed, limp-hand shake, but did a ton of research/gunner-esque


(thinking in extremes of course)

[mw115]

number 1, but both get dinged.

[sundance95]

Dude what are you asking, this is impossible to generalize

[Mal Reynolds]

Sounds like he's aspie and trying to make himself feel better for having great canned answers.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Definitely personality, because your interviews are not going to be substantive anyway.

That said, you can't do anything about your personality but you can do something about how well prepared you are. So I don't see why this is even worth considering.

[heavoldgotjuice]

Dude what are you asking, this is impossible to generalize

From what I've heard, partners/associates look more at personality than "brilliant responses" during CBs, so I was wondering if the converse (sorta) held true during screeners.

And to the rat that made the aspie remark, it's quite the opposite - I'm a bit unprepared so Im hoping my easygoing attitude may save the day for me.

[Mal Reynolds]

Dude what are you asking, this is impossible to generalize

From what I've heard, partners/associates look more at personality than "brilliant responses" during CBs, so I was wondering if the converse (sorta) held true during screeners.

And to the rat that made the aspie remark, it's quite the opposite - I'm a bit unprepared so Im hoping my easygoing attitude may save the day for me.

So easy going you made this stupid thread. Makes sense.

[Anonymous User]

Generally the glad-hander is preferred, though its a bit more subtle than binary.

Many of the kids we interview have really spectacular GPAs. If some dude has a 3.75 from CLS or NYU, and he's personable and easy to talk to, but his answers are a bit glib; fuck it, no question that kid is getting an CB (or offer). Maybe he just wasn't as interested in our firm compared to some others so didn't do full diligence; but it's our job to try to recruit him and make him realize that this is the place for him.

OTOH, if the kid has great grades and comes off as antisocial in the interview, its a major demerit. I already knew you were smart and well prepared because you have top 10% grades. Now I've learned that you're unpleasant to work with.

OTO, OH, if your grades are marginal (or you have superlative grades from a second rate school), then I'm more worried about your intellect and attention to detail. Being personable but unprepared will be a real disadvantage there. But so will being anti social. Because I'm looking for evidence that you transcend your credentials, and neither option does that.