| Topic Name: |
McKinsey in decline? |
| Message Name: |
Re: McK vs. DC, etc. |
| Date Posted: |
12/28/2005 |
| In Reply To: |
The article you mention is dead-on accurate -- perception is finally catching up with reality! I worked in MC for 4 years (in one of the "m/b/b") and let me tell you that this obsession w/ Mck is completely confined to bschools and the Vault board. The Mck mystique might have been somewhat justified in the 80s and 90s, but today, most F500 execs barely distinguish among the top 6-7 firms (m/b/b/bah/mon/marak).
"Strategy consulting" is a term only used among bschool students who have NO idea what consulting is all about. I dare you to attend a bschool MC employee info session and ask the presenter what fraction of their work is "strategy". You'll look retarded.
The hey days of pure "strategy" consulting are largely over. The fastest growing sectors for consulting are energy, transportation, and the public sector, all of which have an inherently operational bent and contain major overlaps with gov't. This is not Mck's strong suit. Bain and even Booz are stronger that Mck in these areas.
As for your CV, recent bschool grads will quickly find out that simply having Mck on your resume means sh*t. The firm I work for -- a major pharma company -- would hire the SA from Deloitte with 3-4 yrs under his belt than the assoc from Mck who quit/counseled out after 2 years. You guys will quickly find out that the "real world" (ie, F500) couldn't care less what firm you worked for. They only care about engagement experience and job performance. In fact, one could argue that you should work for Deloitte and be a stand out and get staffed on top engagements than work for mck and be mediocre and get counseled out in 2 years. EVERYONE KNOWS (INCLDUING MCK ALMUNI) THAT MCK IS LOWERING THEIR HIRING STANDARDS TO ACCOMODATE GROWTH, SO SIMPLY WORKING FOR MCK FOR 2 YEARS MEANS LITTLE AND OPENS NO MORE DOOORS THAN WORKING FOR OTHER TOP FIRMS.
It's great to see the bubble finally burst on Mck on this board. The rest of the world already knew it -- it's about time bschools and Vault and "prestige whores" caught up! |
| Message: |
A few good points sadly undermined by a rancorous tone.
Yes, it is true that a quick in-and-out at McKinsey doesn??t get you a golden pass for the rest of your career. The comparison the Deloitte is exaggerated though. For one, DC is a very large firm and there is significant variance in the background of its consultants. I bet you will find people from Wharton / HBS all the way down to DeVry / ITT Tech. Contrast that with McKinsey, where everyone has to meet the proverbial ??bar?? (academics, impact, experience, etc.) just to get an interview.
Then there is the type of work that these firms do. Unlike McKinsey, DC??s services span a much broader spectrum ?? from doing strategy studies down to Y2K / software testing. To claim that any DC consultant with 3-4 years exp is at par with a McKinsey dropout after two years is na??ve.
Also, you ignored a key differentiator that puts McKinsey way above the likes of DC: its alumni network. This omission is particularly glaring considering that you are from Wharton ?? another organization whose network is its key differentiator.
Finally, I wouldn??t make sweeping generalizations like ??perception is finally catching up with reality?? or ??bubble finally burst on McK.?? At best, it smacks of a desperate attempt to rationalize your failure to get into the firm. (Ok, here I am being presumptive.)
|
|
