I suppose judging based on a few people we may have met, is myopic but it can't be disregarded either. I agree that the insight we have gathered would be limited, but I think you can also observe a fair about the firm.Vagabond said:In companies of thousands of people judging a firm's 'niceness' based on a handful of people you met is pretty short-sighted.
Unfortunately however I don't think there's any way to determine what company is right for you from an outsider's perspective as the most important things like
A) How that particular company will expect you to perform your work (e.g. methods, IT systems, 'work infrastructure' [massive differences here btw])
B) Training (availability and frequency)
C) Internal assessment
...are practically hidden from you until you've started.
Personally, after speaking to a graduate I know at PwC, I was genuinely impressed and keen to get an offer at the firm. However, I had my Conquest Assessment Centre today and my perception of the firm changed quite drastically.
I realise that I have only had a limited exposure to the firm, so my sweeping inferences could be completely wrong. First off, I wouldn't say I had the most welcoming partner to interview me - she didn't even smile once, not that she had to but it would have been reassuring. Also, I realise I can't expect to be able to mingle with numerous experienced employees, but at PwC today the vast majority of the recruitment team had only been at the firm for a few months. I just felt that this contrasted starkly with my experience at KPMG, where I could mingle with partners, managers and graduates. I think one other issue, while extremely minor does reflect a lot about the firm as well and that was the lunch. In the elevator going up one of the new grads commented that at least we get a free lunch since you don't really get many freebies, yet I found the lunch to be rather abysmal. Ultimately, my friend and I grabbed lunch elsewhere afterwards, but I thought this was partially indicative of how highly they valued potential employees. At KPMG and this is a preference thing, but I found the lunch to be quite nice, rather than a meagre selection of sandwiches... there were a variety of sandwiches, wraps and focaccias.
With that said, that was purely my thoughts and I am not trying to imply that PwC isn't a great place to work for many people, but my perception did shift. I am still interested in PwC, simply because the BA line has more appeal to me than Audit at KPMG - but there are a number of things I have to weigh up if I get two offers (unlikely though, as I don't think I impressed in the interview for PwC). I guess I just had high expectations going in there from the conversations I had with the person I knew there.
So, I suppose I'm trying to convey though in a rather unclear manner, that even though it might be limited we can probably infer quite a bit about the firms.
Any chance you have similar figures for Audit? The only source I've been able to go off is the Connect4 survey.Suvat said:Do note that these rankings measure the overall strength and reputation of the firm's entire tax practice. Naturally, each firm will be stronger in some areas than others. For example, EY is particularly strong in the media sector while PwC is a powerhouse in financial services.
Last edited: