I submitted my application online as an off-cycle Associate hire (yes, it can happen!) at the end of April and received an email in mid-May notifying me first rounds would be in July. I had a total of two rounds - first rounds and final rounds in the New York City Office. First rounds - very much a super day with at least 8 fellow interviewees in office. Interviewed with two project managers...both cases were pharma related/outsourcing cases. The first case had little contextual information upfront and the question asked was quite vague. I was asked, verbatim: "Client is a pharma client in [insert specific part of the world]. What should we do with the company?" Once you ask for information, you do get some exhibits to analyze and interpret. Second interview, in contrast, was loaded with background information and the question was a little more specific, something along the lines of: "What country should we outsource to and what criteria should be used in assessing the decision?" Also received some exhibits to interpret/analyze. I was told that I nailed both cases, performed excellently, had good confidence/professionalism, etc. and was passed to final rounds. Interviewed on Friday, received final round invitation on Wednesday. Note here: they had just hired a new recruiting team and the firm was in the process of moving so the communication with the recruiting team was a bit slow/disorganized.. Final rounds - only saw one or two other interviewees in office. Interviewed with a project manager and a principal. The case with the principal was also pharma/outsourcing related - probably a reflection of the BCG pipeline... The case question was balanced as far as background/question goes: "Where should we outsource and what products should be outsourced?" Exhibits in this case as well. The fit/PEI was about 5 minutes still. In feedback, I was told my structuring of this case was excellent, but the recommendation/summary could have been a little more succinct, and I could have done a better job of summarizing the risks associated with my recommendation. My second interview with the principal I feel is the one that dinged me, especially from a fit perspective. The case question was relatively average in difficult. This time, it was finance related and I was asked to answer VERY specific questions: 1) size the market, 2) identify the problem 3) propose a recommendation. Was given exhibits after relaying my structure. I started off with my framework to identify the problem, which came across as very formulaic - the interview wanted me to size the market first. Word of advice: make sure you answer the questions as they are presented, and if not, indicate you want to start with answering one portion first. I did size the market quite well and structure the analysis correctly, but was told my math was not as fast as they would have liked and that my communication style for the fit/PEI was too narrative/not succinct enough though they reiterated I had very good stories and experiences. As you can probably tell :) In the end though, I personally feel I did not connect as much with the Principal, and that ultimately influenced the decision. Interviewed on Friday afternoon, did not hear back Friday so predicted it was a ding. Both interviewers in my final rounds were very accommodating and took the the time to walk me through my final round feedback via telephone and repeatedly relayed it was a pleasure meeting me. At the end of the day, I'm guessing there was just a better candidate quantitatively with a better fit out there, but I do think they missed out on a great candidate :