HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU THAT YOUR NEXT APPLICATION WILL GET YOU AN INTERVIEW?

You've spent hours researching firms, perfecting your CV and writing cover letters. But are you actually doing what recruiters want to see?

Stop guessing. Start giving yourself a real chance.

Get a proven roadmap, CV and cover letter feedback, weekly live Q&As, interview preparation and a community of ambitious candidates working towards the same goal.

JOIN FINANCE FAST TRACK TODAY →

Hey {{first_name}} 👋!

I want to show you something today that could completely change how you approach your spring week, internship and graduate applications.

Imagine two students.

Both attend the same university.

Both study Economics.

Both are predicted a 2:1.

Both are applying to the same investment banking Spring Week.

One gets rejected. The other gets invited to interview.

Why?

You might assume the successful candidate has better grades, more work experience, stronger connections or a more prestigious background.

But what if I told you that both candidates have almost identical credentials?

The difference is how they present the evidence that they're worth interviewing.

And that's what we're going to break down today.

I've spent years helping students with CVs, cover letters, application questions and interviews. One of the biggest lessons I've learned is that many candidates aren't necessarily lacking in ability.

They're failing to communicate their ability.

So today, I'm going to take you through a complete application teardown.

We'll cover:

I'll show you actual wording you can adapt, not just generic advice like "tailor your CV" or "demonstrate commercial awareness."

By the end, you'll have a framework you can use to improve every application you submit this season.

One quick clarification: the candidates and application excerpts below are fictional examples designed to illustrate the principles. They aren't actual applicants or a claim that particular wording guarantees an interview.

Let's get into it.

Meet Adam and Sarah.

They're both first-year Economics students at the same university.

Here's what their profiles look like:

Sarah doesn't have a magical advantage.

She hasn't interned at Goldman Sachs.

She doesn't have a family member working at Morgan Stanley.

She hasn't founded a hedge fund from her bedroom.

She's simply better at connecting what she's done to what the employer is looking for.

Let's see what that looks like.

Imagine you're reviewing 200 CVs.

You don't know any of the applicants personally.

You can't see how passionate they are.

You can't see how hard they've worked.

You can only judge the evidence they've put in front of you.

Now look at these two CV bullets.

❌ Adam writes:

"Worked as a sales assistant, helping customers, managing stock and working as part of a team."

There's nothing technically wrong with this.

But what have we learned?

That's about it.

We don't know whether he was good at his job.

We don't know whether he took initiative.

We don't know whether he solved problems.

Now look at Sarah's version.

✅ Sarah writes:

"Served 40+ customers per shift, resolving queries and coordinating with five colleagues during peak periods to maintain efficient service and support daily sales targets."

Same job.

Different presentation.

Sarah has demonstrated:

She hasn't invented a more impressive experience. She's extracted more evidence from the experience she already has.

And that's the first major lesson.

Instead of describing your responsibilities, explain:

Action + Scope + Skill + Outcome

For example:

Weak:

"Responsible for organising university society events."

Stronger:

"Coordinated three careers events for 120+ students, managing speaker communication, venue logistics and promotion to improve access to industry networking opportunities."

Notice the difference?

The second version answers four questions:

You don't need impressive job titles.

You need evidence.

Important: Never invent numbers or outcomes. If you don't know exactly how many people attended, use an accurate approximation you can defend, or describe the scope without a number.

Here's another one.

❌ Adam writes:

"Member of the university Finance Society. Attended events and developed an interest in investment banking."

This tells me very little.

Membership alone doesn't prove commercial awareness, analytical ability or genuine curiosity.

✅ Sarah writes:

"Analysed a recent acquisition in a student investment discussion, examining the buyer's strategic rationale, financing considerations and potential integration risks."

Now we're getting somewhere.

Sarah has demonstrated that she can think about a transaction.

She's connecting her interest in finance to actual analysis.

And here's the interesting part.

You don't need to be on the committee to do this.

You could analyse a deal independently.

You could build a simple company valuation.

You could write a one-page investment thesis.

You could compare the financial performance of two companies.

The important distinction is that you can discuss and defend the work.

Which brings me to a mistake I see constantly.

❌ Adam writes:

Skills: Leadership, teamwork, communication, analytical thinking, problem-solving, attention to detail.

Sounds good, right?

But anyone can write those words.

A skill claimed is not the same as a skill demonstrated.

If you say you're analytical, where's the analysis?

If you say you're a leader, who have you led?

If you say you're commercially aware, what commercial issue have you examined?

Here's an exercise I want you to do.

Open your CV.

Highlight every adjective or skill claim.

For each one, ask:

"Where have I actually proved this?"

If you can't point to a specific example, you've identified a gap.

And sometimes the solution isn't rewriting your CV.

It's going out and creating the evidence.

More on that later.

This is one of the biggest opportunities to separate yourself.

Let's use a fictional application to J.P. Morgan's investment banking programme.

The question:

"Why are you interested in J.P. Morgan and this programme?"

"I am interested in J.P. Morgan because it is one of the world's leading financial institutions with a strong global reputation and excellent career development opportunities.

I am particularly attracted to the firm's commitment to innovation, teamwork and excellence. I believe the Spring Week would provide valuable exposure to the financial services industry and help me develop my skills."

Read that again.

Now replace "J.P. Morgan" with Goldman Sachs.

Or Morgan Stanley.

Or Barclays.

It still works.

And that's the problem.

The answer is full of compliments but almost no evidence of research or independent thinking.

Let's examine the issues.

Problem 1: "Leading financial institution."

What does that actually mean?

What specifically interests you about its business?

Problem 2: "Commitment to innovation."

Where is the evidence?

Which initiative, transaction or strategic decision caught your attention?

Problem 3: "Develop my skills."

Which skills?

Why those skills?

And why this particular programme?

"My interest in J.P. Morgan's investment banking business comes from understanding how advisers help companies make decisions that can reshape entire industries.

For example, I recently studied [insert a verified transaction advised on by J.P. Morgan]. What interested me wasn't simply the size of the deal, but the strategic questions involved: why the buyer chose to acquire rather than grow organically, how the transaction might be financed, and whether the expected synergies justified the acquisition premium.

I explored these questions further by comparing the companies' financial performance and considering the risks to shareholders if the integration failed.

This experience strengthened my interest in investment banking because I enjoyed combining financial analysis with commercial judgement.

I'm particularly interested in J.P. Morgan's programme because [insert a specific, verified feature of the programme], which would allow me to explore how these decisions are evaluated in practice."

Notice what Sarah has done.

She's demonstrated:

And she's connected everything back to her own experience.

The bracketed details are deliberately left for you to research. Don't copy an unverified deal or programme feature into your application.

Use IB Cheat Code’s Prompts to craft detailed structures for answers like Sarah’s using AI.

Here's the framework I recommend:

1. Specific observation

Find something concrete about the firm.

A transaction, strategic initiative, market position, investment approach, business model or distinctive programme feature.

2. Your interpretation

Explain why you find it interesting.

Not simply what happened, but why it matters.

3. Personal connection

Show how this relates to something you've studied, researched, experienced or want to understand better.

4. Programme relevance

Explain why the opportunity you're applying for is a logical next step.

Here's the difference:

Average candidate: "I admire your firm's reputation."

Stronger candidate: "I researched something your firm did, formed a view about it, and can explain why it made me interested in your work."

That's much harder to fake.

Here's one of the simplest ways to improve your application.

Take your answer to "Why this firm?"

Replace the company's name with a competitor's name.

If the answer still makes sense without changing anything else, it's probably not specific enough.

But there's a second test that's even more powerful.

Replace your own name with another student's.

Could they have written the exact same answer?

If yes, you haven't demonstrated enough of your personal reasoning.

The strongest application answers are specific to both the firm and the candidate.

Let's look at another common application question.

"Tell us about a time you demonstrated leadership."

Adam writes:

"I demonstrated leadership while working on a university group project. I helped organise the team, ensured everyone completed their tasks and communicated regularly to make sure we finished on time. This experience improved my leadership and teamwork skills."

The problem?

It's almost entirely self-assessment.

He says he demonstrated leadership.

But he doesn't give us enough evidence to judge it.

Here's how Sarah approaches the same question.

"During a university economics project, our five-person team had ten days to prepare a presentation analysing inflation trends.

Four days before the deadline, we realised that two team members had been using inconsistent data periods, making our findings difficult to compare.

I suggested that we standardise the dataset, divided the remaining analysis into clear workstreams and organised two short progress meetings to identify any further issues.

We completed the presentation on time, with consistent analysis across the group, and received 72%.

The experience taught me that leadership isn't necessarily about having authority. It's about recognising when a team needs direction, taking responsibility and helping everyone contribute effectively."

Look at how much more we've learned.

Sarah has shown:

That's a convincing competency answer.

You've probably heard of STAR:

S — Situation: What was happening?

T — Task: What needed to be achieved?

A — Action: What did YOU actually do?

R — Result: What happened?

But I recommend adding another R.

R — Reflection: What did you learn, and how would you apply it again?

So your framework becomes:

STARR = Situation + Task + Action + Result + Reflection.

The reflection is particularly useful because it shows self-awareness.

And here's something important.

Your example doesn't have to be extraordinary.

You don't need to have raised £100,000 for charity.

You don't need to have founded a startup.

You don't need to have captained a national sports team.

You can demonstrate leadership through:

The quality of your explanation matters more than how glamorous the experience sounds.

This is where I want you to pay particular attention.

Because I regularly hear students say:

"I can't get an internship because I don't have experience."

But then I ask:

"What have you done to demonstrate your interest in finance?"

And the answer is often:

"Well, I've been applying for internships."

That's the problem.

You're waiting for an employer to give you the opportunity to demonstrate your interest.

But there are things you can do right now.

Without connections.

Without a finance internship.

And without spending any money.

HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU THAT YOUR NEXT APPLICATION WILL GET YOU AN INTERVIEW?

You've spent hours researching firms, perfecting your CV and writing cover letters. But are you actually doing what recruiters want to see?

Stop guessing. Start giving yourself a real chance.

Get a proven roadmap, CV and cover letter feedback, weekly live Q&As, interview preparation and a community of ambitious candidates working towards the same goal.

JOIN FINANCE FAST TRACK TODAY →

Choose a recent acquisition.

For example, find a publicly announced transaction involving a listed company.

Then answer these questions:

Use company announcements, investor presentations, annual reports and reputable financial news sources.

Then write a one-page deal analysis.

The magic is in question eight.

Because that's where you stop repeating information and start developing commercial judgement.

Don't simply write:

"The acquisition is expected to generate synergies."

Ask:

"Which synergies are realistic? How long might they take? What could prevent management from delivering them?"

That's a much more interesting discussion.

Choose a publicly traded company.

Download its latest annual report.

Open Excel.

Then:

You don't need to build a 30-tab investment banking model.

You're a student.

The aim is to demonstrate curiosity, basic financial understanding and a willingness to learn.

A simple, accurate model that you can explain is far better than a sophisticated model you don't understand.

Pick a company.

Answer:

Then make a reasoned argument.

It doesn't matter whether your conclusion is bullish or bearish.

What matters is whether you can explain the logic.

Your opinion is not the same as a guess. Your opinion should be the conclusion of your research.

Create a section called:

Independent Financial Projects

Example:

M&A Transaction Analysis | Independent Project

"Analysed a publicly announced acquisition, evaluating strategic rationale, financing structure, potential synergies and execution risks to assess the transaction's implications for shareholders."

Or:

Equity Research Project | Independent Project

"Built a financial analysis of a listed company using annual reports and peer valuation multiples, assessing profitability, growth drivers and key investment risks."

Only include projects you've genuinely completed.

And expect to be questioned on every detail.

An interviewer might ask:

"Why did you choose that valuation multiple?"

"What was the biggest risk you identified?"

"What would change your conclusion?"

If you can answer those questions confidently, you've turned a lack of formal experience into an opportunity to demonstrate initiative.

Here's something I wish more students understood.

Knowing what happened in the news is not the same as being commercially aware.

Let's say interest rates have fallen.

Adam says:

"Lower interest rates can encourage borrowing and stimulate economic growth."

That's a reasonable starting point.

But it's basic.

Sarah goes further.

She asks:

What happened?

A central bank reduced its policy rate.

Why did it happen?

Perhaps inflation has eased or economic activity has weakened.

Who is affected?

Borrowers, savers, companies, investors and financial institutions.

How might it affect different banking divisions?

Investment Banking: Lower financing costs could make some acquisitions or capital-raising transactions more attractive.

Asset Management: Changing bond yields and discount rates could influence portfolio allocations and asset valuations.

Sales & Trading: Shifts in rate expectations could affect bond prices, currencies, derivatives and client hedging activity.

Wealth Management: Clients might reassess the balance between cash, bonds, equities and other investments.

What's the counterargument?

Lower rates don't automatically mean more transactions or higher asset prices.

If rates are falling because the economy is deteriorating, weaker earnings expectations and reduced confidence could offset the benefits.

What's your view?

"I think lower financing costs could support deal activity, but I'd watch corporate confidence and earnings expectations before assuming that M&A volumes will recover."

Now that's a commercial discussion.

Every time you read an important financial story, ask:

Do this for three stories every week.

After a month, you'll have analysed 12 developments.

And more importantly, you'll have practised thinking about finance instead of simply memorising headlines.

Let's bring everything together.

Here's what Adam's application communicates:

CV: "I've completed the usual student activities."

Why finance? "I'm passionate about financial markets and want to work in a challenging environment."

Why this firm? "You're prestigious, global and offer excellent opportunities."

Leadership: "I worked in a team and helped everyone finish their tasks."

Commercial awareness: "I follow the Financial Times and keep up with market developments."

None of these statements is necessarily false.

But they don't provide much evidence.

Now compare Sarah.

CV: "Here are specific examples of where I've demonstrated skills relevant to the role."

Why finance? "I analysed a transaction, enjoyed understanding the commercial decisions involved and want to explore that work further."

Why this firm? "I've researched a particular aspect of your business, formed a view about it and identified why this programme is relevant to my interests."

Leadership: "Here's a specific problem I faced, what I personally did, the result and what I learned."

Commercial awareness: "Here's a development, its implications for the division and clients, and my view on what could happen next."

Can you see the difference?

Adam mostly tells the recruiter what he wants them to believe.

Sarah gives the recruiter reasons to believe it.

That's the principle I want you to remember.

Don't tell them you're impressive. Give them the evidence to reach that conclusion themselves.

And no, even a well-written application doesn't guarantee progression.

Some employers have strict eligibility requirements, automated assessments, limited places and enormous application volumes.

But you can control how clearly and convincingly you present your experience.

Now I want you to do something practical.

Don't just read this email, think "that was useful" and move on.

Open your most recent application.

Set a timer for 30 minutes.

And complete the following exercise.

Read every bullet on your CV.

Ask yourself:

Your task: Rewrite your three weakest bullets.

Open your answer to "Why this firm?"

Ask:

Your task: Replace one generic paragraph with a researched, personally relevant argument.

Read your answer to "Why this division?"

Highlight every phrase such as:

"Fast-paced environment."

"Passion for finance."

"Challenging work."

"Dynamic industry."

"Prestigious institution."

Now ask yourself:

What actual experience, observation or piece of research supports each claim?

Your task: Replace two unsupported claims with specific evidence.

Choose your most important competency answer.

Check that it contains:

Your task: Make the action section more specific and remove unnecessary background.

Choose one relevant news story.

Write five sentences:

Your task: Be able to explain the story out loud without reading your notes.

Imagine you're the recruiter.

You've never met yourself.

You have no emotional attachment to your achievements.

You only know what's written on the application.

Now ask:

"What are the three strongest reasons to invite this person to interview?"

Write them down.

If you struggle to find three convincing reasons, you've identified where your application needs more work.

Here's a simple scorecard you can use before every submission.

Score each category from 0 to 2:

0 = Missing or generic

1 = Present, but weak

2 = Specific, credible and supported by evidence

How to interpret your score:

0–9: Significant gaps. Focus on adding evidence and improving specificity.

10–15: A reasonable foundation, but several answers could be stronger.

16–20: Your application communicates your experiences clearly. Check eligibility, accuracy and role fit before submitting.

This is a self-review tool, not an employer's scoring system or a predictor of interview invitations.

The real value isn't the number.

It's knowing exactly which parts of your application need attention.

If I were a first-year student with no finance experience, here's how I'd spend the next seven days.

Day 1 — Rebuild my CV.

Rewrite every weak bullet using Action + Scope + Skill + Outcome.

Remove unsupported adjectives.

Make sure the strongest, most relevant evidence is easy to find.

Day 2 — Research the division.

Understand what investment bankers, asset managers, traders, wealth managers or risk professionals actually do.

Learn the main products, responsibilities, clients and commercial drivers.

Day 3 — Analyse a real transaction or company.

Complete a one-page project that demonstrates genuine curiosity.

Focus on understanding the reasoning, not producing something that looks complicated.

Day 4 — Build my evidence bank.

Create a document with six experiences covering:

Write each using STARR.

One experience can demonstrate multiple skills, but prepare enough variety to avoid repeating the same story everywhere.

Day 5 — Research three target firms.

For each firm, identify:

Write your own view rather than copying the website.

Day 6 — Practise commercial awareness.

Choose three stories.

Apply the five-question framework.

Explain each story out loud in under two minutes.

Day 7 — Complete a full application.

Draft your answers.

Use the 20-point scorecard.

Check facts, spelling, eligibility, word limits and consistency.

Then ask someone to read the application without giving them any additional context.

Ask them:

"What have you learned about me?"

"What evidence suggests I would be good at this role?"

"Which parts sound generic?"

Use their feedback to make one final revision.

Then submit.

And repeat the process.

Not by starting from scratch every time, but by building a library of genuine experiences, research and examples that you can adapt appropriately.

I want to finish with something important.

A lot of students approach applications by asking:

"How do I make myself sound more impressive?"

I think that's the wrong question.

A much better question is:

"What evidence would make someone confident that I deserve an interview?"

That changes everything.

Instead of writing "I'm passionate about finance," you start researching companies and transactions.

Instead of writing "I'm a strong leader," you start explaining decisions you've made and problems you've solved.

Instead of writing "I have excellent analytical skills," you start showing examples of your analysis.

And instead of saying "I want to work at your firm because it's prestigious," you develop a genuine understanding of what makes the opportunity interesting to you.

You stop relying on adjectives.

You start relying on evidence.

You stop trying to appear like the perfect candidate.

You start becoming a better-prepared candidate.

You cannot control how many other students apply, how many places are available or every decision a recruiter makes.

But you can control the work you put into your application.

You can control how deeply you research the firm.

You can control whether your examples are specific.

You can control whether you've developed an informed opinion.

And you can control whether the person reading your application can clearly see the value you might bring.

That's where I'd focus my energy.

One final challenge.

Before you submit your next application, make sure you can answer this question:

"If I removed my name from this application, would the recruiter still learn something specific and convincing about me?"

If the answer is no, you've got more work to do.

If the answer is yes, you're heading in the right direction.

And if you've got a friend who's applying for Spring Weeks, summer internships or graduate schemes, send them this email.

Not because I want more readers.

But because there are plenty of capable students who are being overlooked, and some of them simply need help communicating what they're capable of.

If this helps even one of your friends submit a stronger application, it'll have been worth writing.

All the best,

Afzal

P.S. Here's one thing you can do right now: take your weakest CV bullet and rewrite it using Action + Scope + Skill + Outcome. Then read both versions out loud. You'll immediately hear the difference.

P.P.S. Whenever you’re ready: