FEEDBACK

FRAMEWORK
C A S E I N T E R V I E W P R E PA R AT I O N
W h ic h s ta te me nt b e s t d e s cri b es th e c a n d i da te ' s u s e o f a h yp o th esi s?

 Candidate DID NOT state or imply a hypothesis.

 Candidate DID imply a hypothesis but DID NOT state one

explicitly.

 Candidate DID explicitly state a hypothesis, BUT the

hypothesis was not reasonable given the case
background.

 Candidate DID explicitly state a reasonable hypothesis

given the case background and did so in a naturally
conversational way.
W h ic h s ta te me nt b e s t d e s cri b es th e c a n d i da te ' s u s e o f a p r o b l em -
s o lvin g c a s e s tr u ctu re?

 Candidate DID NOT indicate a framework/issue or a problem-solving

structure.

 Candidate DID indicate a framework/issue tree, but it was late into

the case or it was not directly relevant to the case or was not MECE

 Candidate DID indicate a framework/issue tree upfront which was

directly relevant to the case and was mostly MECE

 Candidate DID indicate a framework/issue tree upfront which was

directly relevant to the case and was entirely MECE.
 W h ic h s ta te me nt b e s t d e s cri b es th e c a n d i da te ' s a n a l yti c al p r o b l e m -
s o lvin g s k ills ?

 Candidate DID NOT use a linear, step-by-step process for analyzing the case
(instead jumped around from topic to topic in a disorganized, hard-to-follow
fashion).

 Candidate DID analyze the problem in a logical sequence but DID NOT tackle one
or more key issues, or got distracted and unnecessarily analyzed issues not
relevant to the case.

 Candidate DID analyze the problem in a logical sequence and efficiently

addressed all key issues needed to solve the case but DID NOT indicate his or her
reasoning for the selected approach.

 Candidate DID analyze the problem in a logical, efficient sequence and verbally
justified with data why he or she wanted to tackle certain topics in a specific order.
 W h ic h s ta te me nt b e s t d e s cri b es th e c a n d i da te ' s q u a n ti fi cati on s k i l l s ?

 Candidate DID NOT quantify key qualitative trends and observations in the case.

 Candidate DID quantify key trends and observations in the case appropriately at least 50% of the
time by asking for specific numerical data and, when necessary, derived quantifications via
computations.

 Candidate DID quantify key trends and observations in the case appropriately 100% of the time BUT
quantified more often than was necessary to test the hypothesis.

 Candidate DID quantify key trends and observations in the case appropriately 100% of the time and
did so efficiently by avoiding quantifications unnecessary to solve the case.
 W h ic h s ta te me nt b e s t d e s cri b es th e c a n d i da te ' s q u a l i ta ti ve d a ta
g a th e ring s k ills ?

 Candidate DID NOT ask questions seeking qualitative data, and therefore did not develop a
conceptual understanding of what was happening in the case.

 Candidate SOMETIMES asked questions seeking qualitative data.

 Candidate CONSISTENTLY asked questions seeking qualitative data and developed a complete
conceptual picture of the key qualitative factors in the case but DID NOT adequately apply this
knowledge to test the hypothesis.

 Candidate CONSISTENTLY asked questions seeking qualitative data, developed a complete

conceptual picture of the key qualitative factors in the case, and applied this knowledge to testing the
hypothesis.
 W h ic h s ta te me nt b e s t d e s cri b es th e c a n d i da te ' s m a th s k i l l s ?

 Candidate's math WAS NOT 100% accurate.

 Candidate's math WAS 100% accurate, BUT candidate was extremely

slow or uncertain of accuracy.

 Candidate's math WAS 100% accurate, BUT candidate was slow in

performing computations.

 Candidate's math WAS 100% accurate, and candidate was relatively fast
in performing computations.
 W h ic h s ta te me nt b e s t d e s cri b es th e c a n d i da te ' s s yn th e si s o r c o n c l usi o n
s k ills ?

 Candidate DID NOT state a conclusion at the outset of the synthesis and DID NOT back up key
points with relevant facts.

 Candidate DID state a conclusion at the outset BUT provided minimal factual support.

 Candidate DID state a clear, action-oriented conclusion at the outset and provided convincing factual
support for the conclusion BUT the supporting material was disorganized or not easily understood.

 Candidate DID state a clear, action-oriented conclusion at the outset and provided convincing factual
support for the conclusion that was organized in a clear and easily understood way.
 W h ic h s ta te me nt b e s t d e s cri b es th e c a n d i da te ' s c o n fi d en ce l e ve l ?

 Candidate WAS NOT confident, appearing very hesitant and unsure of himself or
herself.

 Candidate WAS somewhat confident, BUT his or her confidence fluctuated

throughout the case.

 Candidate WAS confident and conversationally comfortable throughout the entire

case BUT did seemed disinterested in the case and "going through the motions".

 Candidate WAS confident and conversationally comfortable and genuinely

interested in the case throughout the interview.