So apparently, Glocap sends out updates via email every so often with available jobs (usually 1 or 2 per month). This might be the douchiest one I’ve seen in a while (hey, if you’re qualified, send in). Notice that someone as old as 28 will have to submit (and have minimum) SAT scores (yes, 10-11-year-old high school scores). Friends, I work in real estate–this is NOT rocket science… “Real Estate Analyst for California Hedge Fund. The group is characterized by its entrepreneurial culture, lean deal teams, flat structure, and unconstrained advancement based upon merit. Job Description: The team is seeking to hire a Real Estate Analyst for its California offices. The ideal candidate(s) should possess 3-6 years of total investment banking experience. Outstanding non-real estate Analysts will also be considered provided an interest in real estate investing has been demonstrated through past experience. Candidate Requirements: Qualifications Background: - Minimum cumulative undergraduate GPA of 3.5 at a highly-esteemed college/university - 3-6 years of total investment banking experience; outstanding non-real estate Analysts will also be considered - Top-tier performance ranking in Analyst program - Math SAT >750, Verbal SAT >700 Personal: - Demonstrated leadership in extracurricular activities - Collegial attitude, outstanding personal drive, and exceptional work ethic Compensation will be competitive, consisting of a base salary and bonus component, and will be commensurate with experience. Relocation expenses, if applicable, will be covered by the firm.”
I have been asked for SAT scores before. Could there be a more meaningless metric to evaluate someone on? How could a test you take when you are 16-18 really make any difference in performance? Also, wouldn’t the fact that you went to a “highly-esteemed college/university” make a high SAT score a given?
Ya this is what you get with Glocap. The funds know they can’t leave anything to the discretion of the recruiters, so they give hyperspecific rqmts. This way, Glocap is satisfied b/c they get to throw another worthless posting onto their website and the fund is happy b/c if they are getting an applicant that they are going to spend time interviewing they will have a higher probability of being good at the job (its true that you don’t NEED any of the things they require to be good at this job, but somebody who has all of them is way more likely to be good fit then someone who doesn’t).
also, for whatever reason, the SAT is considered to be a good way of measuring IQ. Your IQ hasn’t really changed meaningfully since you were 18, and since everyone else took the test at the same age, its an even playing field. I’m sure they normalize the scores based on the medians during those years for their own purposes, to adjust for inflation/deflation in scores that has happened over time.
The problem with the SAT is that you still have a lot of very immature people taking the test. Teenage hormones are a very uncontrollable variable. I think there are too many people not trying to use the scores and there distribution as any sort of meaningful gauge of intelligence.
Look at it this way: if you missed a question on the SAT there is a good chance you will miss something when it really matters, fouling up some analysis, leading to a bad investment which could eventually cost the company millions, cause the hiring manager to go broke and commit suicide as a shamed failure. I would rather not take that chance and only hire 800 verbal and 800 math people.
mb389 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > also, for whatever reason, the SAT is considered > to be a good way of measuring IQ. Your IQ hasn’t > really changed meaningfully since you were 18, and > since everyone else took the test at the same age, > its an even playing field. I’m sure they normalize > the scores based on the medians during those years > for their own purposes, to adjust for > inflation/deflation in scores that has happened > over time. Unfortunately, IQ is an awful way of measuring job performance. Why exactly do you think they normalize the scores? What about the preponderance of people in the midwest who only take the ACT? I’m with kkent, this posting is absurd.
My scores were nothing to write home about, but not terrible either. I’d sure hate to be judged on a test I took well over 10 years ago. I was an immature 18 year old kid who basically showed up to the test and did not take it seriously. If you used my SAT scores to predict my undergrad GPA, you would have been way off.
Stupid. This exam was almost 10-11years ago for a job like this… People can change/mature a lot over that time period. By this same logic, why not start looking at tests back in grade school? How about my first spelling test? I can maybe understand for someone right out of college… but for this job??? really??? If anything, use the GMAT/LSAT as a bar, otherwise this is such garbage.
eureka Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Look at it this way: if you missed a question on > the SAT there is a good chance you will miss > something when it really matters, fouling up some > analysis, leading to a bad investment which could > eventually cost the company millions, cause the > hiring manager to go broke and commit suicide as a > shamed failure. > > I would rather not take that chance and only hire > 800 verbal and 800 math people. It has been shown many times that SAT scores are a terrible predictor of success. Nevertheless, I don’t think there is anything wrong with employers asking for them as part of the evaluation process. I do have a problem, however, with employers who screen solely based on them (which is what happens via Glocap). Most hedge funds solely evaluate based on proven investment ideas. Submit your latest idea - if it’s good, you’ll get to round 2, if it sucks then you have no chance. I’d much rather have a team of analysts with proven track records and excellent investment ideas with sub-1200 SATs than a group of analysts with no direct research background (e.g., 2 years of IB) with 1400+ SAT scores. IMHO.
It’s mostly a question of etiquette. For instance, let’s say I specify in my resume that I will only work for companies that pay $300k or above, and that information is not solicited. That would be perceived as extremely douchey, even if I intended to reject any offer for jobs that pays less than that. Likewise, if companies say they will only consider applicants with some minimum SAT score (something that they could discretely filter out anyway), that also comes across as quite douchey. I furthermore doubt that EVERYONE in that company who fills such a position meets those minimum requirements. So even if they are just trying to improve the quality of their incoming employees, it comes across as snooty and possibly hypocritical. Those arguments about SAT scores being correlated to intelligence are quite valid. This is just not something that most companies choose to bring up during recruitment in this manner. Imagine if all bankers said during interviews that they are almost purely motivated by compensation. Even if everyone knows it true, you just don’t say that.
We all know the SAT isn’t a perfect metric. Saying “SAT sux” adds zero value to the conversation. Instead, suggest a reasonable alternative that 95% of job applicants have taken and is normalized for a lot of risk factors. Note that GMAT and LSAT are not replacements.
How come GMAT/LSAT could not be replacements? It’s more relevant than the SAT at this point in the game.
^^^IQ test.
justin88 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We all know the SAT isn’t a perfect metric. > Saying “SAT sux” adds zero value to the > conversation. > > Instead, suggest a reasonable alternative that 95% > of job applicants have taken and is normalized for > a lot of risk factors. Note that GMAT and LSAT > are not replacements. There is no such test. That’s why companies conduct their own tests, called “job interviews”. Now that I say that, we actually have something like that. We send all our second round candidates to a corporate psychologist, who, among other things, gives them a cognitive skills assessment. Not an IQ test, but it gives us a good measure of overall intelligence.
NakedPuts, lol, I just spit out my water. It’s called “job interviews.” LOL.
I still think SATs shoudl be instituted into a caste system. People who understand analogies the best are generally the best fit to lead.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is no such test. That’s why companies > conduct their own tests, called “job interviews”. Agreed, but nonetheless the SAT does provide some signal, albeit not a perfect one. The GMAT and LSAT are far from ubiquitous.
Well, to be fair, job interviews are not perfect tests either. That’s why potential employers ask for work experience, GPA and education background in addition to SAT scores. Asking for any of these things is not douchey. However, saying that you will absolutely not be considered based on some arbitrary and probably unreasonable benchmark is somewhat douchey.
You know, at the end of the day it will be the person who scored well on the SAT and submitted his/her scores along with the job application that will get the job. The people that are standing around calling the company a bunch of d-bags for asking for SAT scores will not get the job. Sometimes you just have to play their silly little games.