When asked what the top three criteria were that she used to narrow down to her future employer, she responded with:

1. Professionalism and respect with which recruiters conducted the first contact and subsequent follow-ups painted a first impression that lingered. She mentioned a particular instance of a recruiter from one of the (declined) firms quite bluntly telling her that she can only apply to the home office of her current city, not the bigger city she indicated as her first choice preference in her application, thus limiting her exposure. KIA has observed that these seemingly minor inflexibilities set a negative tone with the candidates during recruitment process as it is perceived as a precursor to future roadblocks in mobility within the firm.

2. Brand name and practice leader compatibility played another big part in the decision making process. Students are receptive to on-campus recruitment efforts and the image firms portray. It often comes down to which firms all the "cool kids" end up working for. A final round interview with a personable practice leader often allays fears for those who seek a mentor-mentee relationship, rather than a master-indentured servant relationship that give the profession a bad name.

3. Pay, career, and lifestyle flexibility played supporting roles in the process. Intense competition among jobseekers has sprouted a trend where candidates differentiate themselves, not only through academic excellence, but also through leadership in student and non-profit organizations. Most entry level consultants at bulge-bracket firms may lose the ability to maintain these commitments due to intense travel and long hours at the office. The firm that offers the flexibility to pursue social activities, in addition to offering competitive compensation packages, may end up attracting the top talent.

KIA Corner: The Mystery of the Millennials

Related Stories

Recommended For You