The day began with an hour-long multiple choice quantitative exam. The exam is standardized, and is used heavily as a screening process. It was a difficult exam, requiring full use of the time. Following the exam, we had a small break prior to starting two consecutive group interviews. Each interview had three applicants and one associate. Associates read a case out loud and sometimes asked us to read a section of the case on our own, and asked applicants to work through the case out loud. Some aspects required calculations. I was displeased by the quantitative skills exam, and pleased with the group interview format. Admittedly, my perspective is biased, as my current strength lies in the latter, not the former. Nonetheless, there are skills that employees can learn on the job, with quantitative skills being one of them. Many applicants don't have a financial background, yet can nonetheless offer great skills. I am a physician with clinical experience, significant publications in the biomedical literature, completing a second residency, and obtaining master degrees in public health and business administration. To date, I've completed advanced quantitative courses successfully, including physical chemistry, linear algebra, differential equations, multivariable calculus (and three calculus courses leading to that), and so on. This was years ago, but clearly, if I was able to master these years ago, I can learn these quantitative skills o the job. Much to my surprise, then, it seemed rather shortsighted of McKinsey--of all companies-- to use this tool to screen applicants. They do so to their own detriment. Hard skills such as these are easy to pick up on the job. What is more difficult to pick up are more right-brained, creative problem-solving skills, which is my strength. Again, I am biased, but believe this argument is valid. Suffice to say, I've written off McKinsey, as well as any other company that uses such quant skills assessments; to me, this is a marker of shortsightedness that I want to have no part in.