To the candidate having trouble with case interview analytical questions:

How to turn math questions from your biggest weakness into one of your greatest strengths




What if you could reliably and predictably structure, solve and take great insights from any analysis question -- no matter how tough?


  Bruno:



Recently, Julio and I talked to a couple dozen candidates who had just WRECKED their interviews because they got stuck in a math question during their last case.

Here are a few of the things they said:


OUCH!

You know, I still remember the first time this happened to me in a real interview.

I was on a roll, nailing question after question. 

Awesome structure for non-conventional case? Check! MECE brainstorming full of creative and insightful ideas? Check! Flawless way to test the unusual hypothesis I had just created? Check, check, check!

I was confident. I knew the first 5-10 minutes of the case were by far the most important, as it would create a good first impression with the interviewer.

And I could see it was working.

The interviewer was engaged, chatting with me like I were already in his team.

And then I got the math question…

Immediately, I knew I had no idea how to solve it.

I froze… And I could feel the anxiety rushing through my spine.

I knew missing it could destroy my chances of passing to the next round.


The look on my face when I got an analysis I knew I couldn't solve  😱


I collected myself fast enough, and started talking through how I could solve that question.

“Are you sure?”, the interviewer asked.

I wasn’t.

It was all downhill from then on.

I was too nervous to figure out what was wrong, and the more the interviewer tried to help, the more confused I got.

As he bombarded me with both questions and clues about the problem, I noticed myself getting more and more overwhelmed.

I took a deep breath… And I tried again.

But no luck.

I was working through the problem, and all I could see is that I was getting nowhere.

By now, almost all the time I had to solve the case was gone. And so the interviewer said: “That’s alright, let’s skip this one and move on so we can finish the last couple questions of the case…”

I was devastated.

Both him and I knew that from now on it was just procedural... We were just there finishing the case out of being polite to each other.

We had lost the connection…

And the rest of my case solving fell flat.

If not for that missed analysis, I would’ve done an A+ case. He’d probably vouch for me passing to the next round in the recruiting committee… 

And I would’ve gone home happy. 

Happy that I did a good job, and happy that my efforts were likely to pay off.

But I completely messed it up, and there’s no chance they’d pass me vs. the other candidate who did a great case AND got the analysis right.




Now, shit happens and it’s okay. I dealt with it, improved and moved on.

Eventually I developed my skills up to the point that I’d be able to ace any analysis thrown at me. Which is important if you want to get offers, by the way.

But you know what’s weird?

Had you asked me before the interview how my math skills were, I’d be pretty confident about them. I knew I wasn’t ELITE at it, but I wouldn’t guess it’d go so bad.

What I didn’t know at the time is that this was a ticking bomb. It was pretty obvious that was about to happen to me.

It was a matter of when, not if.

Essentially, my quantitative analysis skills were not reliable

Sometimes it worked and I could get to the final answer, and sometimes I felt like a blind man trying to stumble upon the right number.

And because my skills were so inconsistent, there was NO FREAKIN’ WAY I’d get it right in all the interviews (first and final round) that I needed to get an offer.

Now, here’s the most interesting part:

If I were coaching my past self, I’d immediately spot that issue.

This is interesting to you because you can do the same.

You can self-diagnose and see if this will be an issue for you based on what has happened in past interviews and recent mock-interviews you’ve done.

How?

It’s simple. 

Just look for “the 5 signs”…


The 5 signs you'll fail your analytical questions


When you work with so many candidates trying to pass their cases, you start to notice patterns…

Back when we did coaching, Julio and I had two key numbers we tracked: (1) how many of our clients got offers from target firms (60-70%), and (2) our “prediction rate” – if a client would pass their next round, and if not, the specific reason why.

Of course the offer rate was the most critical number. It’s the one everyone asked before working with us.

But the prediction rate had a specific purpose that was, in my view, as important: it told us if we were diagnosing our clients’ key issues right.

It’s probably the most important part of being a coach.

I couldn’t promise an offer to everyone. Some people had just a week to prepare. Some had a lot of trouble in critical skills. Some had just one shot at one firm. A couple were actually unlucky.

But it was 100% my job to tell them at any given moment if they were ready to get an offer and, if not, what’s the ONE THING that would prevent them from success.

And our prediction rate was HIGH. Consistently higher than 95%.

Why am I telling you this?

Because you can borrow from our experience.

In the case of analytical questions, there were 5 specific clues. Five specific behaviors that signaled that a candidate was about to mess up big time in their math questions.

(And all of them were fixable, by the way.)

Here they are:


SIGN #1: You improvise your way to an answer


You get a math question and without pause, jump in and just “wing it”.

Maybe you create a structure, because you’ve heard you’re “supposed to”. But you rarely stick to it – usually it doesn’t even work, anyway…

You trust your intuition whenever you get an analysis… But that also means you either “know” how to solve it, or you have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE.

This was me in my first handful of interviews. The bad habit of trying to improvise my way to the answer got me in trouble several times.

And if I hadn’t fixed it, I’d never have gotten offers at McKinsey and Bain. It’d be borderline IMPOSSIBLE.

Looking back, the reason I used to “improvise” is that I didn’t really know how to be more structured about setting up the steps and equations to solve case math. But more on that later…


SIGN #2: You're chaotic and confused


You always “get lost” while working through the numbers, and whenever faced with a large amount of data it’s pure chaos.

And because of that, it’s always stressful.

All the stuff is mixed up in your paper, and hence your communication is confusing too.

Heck, you sometimes even forget what parts of the analysis are already done.

Maybe you’ve missed an OBVIOUS step once or twice:

“Oh, I just had to multiply the results per store by the number of stores… How could I forget that?”, you think to yourself as you order the Uber back home.

The point is: you can’t talk through the math in a way that’s clear both to YOU and YOUR INTERVIEWER.

And it’s impossible to reliably solve math problems that way.


SIGN #3: You often cannot structure a path to the final answer


You’re diligent. 

You know you must create a clear and structured approach before you start doing math.

You’re not trying to “wing it”.

And you understand you need a step-by-step way to solve it – being messy or unclear is NOT an option.

But you just can’t.

Structuring the damn math question is almost always the hardest part of the case for you.

And so you try to get better…

You ask your friends how they create those equations, and the answer is always the same: “I just do it.”

You know if you fixed this one thing, you’d go from missing 50% of your cases into acing 95%+.

There’s only one missing piece of the puzzle… 

But no matter what you do, you just can’t seem to fix it.


SIGN #4: You feel mathematically insecure (aka: "you're bad at math")


You go into the interview already in fear: “I’m bad at math, what if the interviewer notices that?”

Maybe you weren’t good at math in school… 

Maybe you were decent, but this whole “do it fast and under pressure” thing isn’t for you.

I’ve worked with dozens of candidates who felt a bit insecure about their math talent. The vast majority of them do have the underlying math skills – consulting math isn’t rocket science, after all.

Still, their insecurity becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

They fear being “bad” or “slow” at math, and that fear stresses them out. 

And that stress makes them not think clearly.

What could be a small disadvantage (that they’d be able to overcome) is amplified by a boatload of self-doubt.

And then it becomes a huge burden. 

It drags you down during the math parts of the interview. And sometimes it even spills over to the other parts. You’re so nervous about the math that you mess up even in the parts you were supposed to be good at.


SIGN #5: You miss 50% of your analyses and think there's nothing wrong with it


Some candidates simply ignore reality, bury their heads in the sand and pretend there’s nothing wrong.

I once worked with a candidate who, no kidding, missed 4 in every 5 analyses he did. When I pointed out to him that fact, he said this wouldn’t be a problem because he was an engineer from a top school.

He always had an excuse…

  • “Oh, I just messed up the percentages in that one."
  • “Oh, I have trouble with big numbers when I’m not paying much attention.”
  • “Oh, I just didn’t know that business formula.”


It was all true… And I bet he was great at math too – he was the one who could do advanced calculus, after all, not me.

But he was also not good at case math. 

And the problem wasn’t going away.

Eventually, I convinced him (through cold hard data about his mistakes) that he had to work on this. He ended up getting an offer at McKinsey (and made no math mistakes in his interviews).

But if I wasn’t there to help him see the obvious, it’s possible he’d just pretend math wasn’t an issue, and sabotage his way into failure through the incredible power of cognitive dissonance.

(How do I know that? Simple. He had done more than 50 cases before working with me and still hadn’t spotted the issue…)


But what if you were good at this?
Here's what would happen...


I’ve worked with a lot of candidates who stress out every time they get an analysis when solving a case.

Candidates who feel like they’re playing a lottery. A lottery that determines if they’ll be able to finish the case or not.

Who go into interviews praying that they’ll get one of the “easy ones”.

If you’re like that, it helps to see what could be instead…

To a lot of candidates, it’s just another question:

  • They listen to the interviewer and calmly create a structured approach to solve it...


  • If they’re unsure about something, they don’t freak out. Instead, they talk to the interviewer, and clarify the terminology, business model or metric they’re unsure about…


  • Then they start the math, but only after BOTH them and their interviewer already know they’ll get to the right answer, because it’s all clearly laid out in front of them…


  • And as they get to the correct final number – with no stress, confusion or overwhelm – they tie it back to the case and articulate what the number means to the client and how to move the case forward.


It’s a calm, confident set of words and actions that always leads to the right answer. 

It’s almost peaceful to watch.

Now, you might be asking yourself... Is it because they’re naturals at this?

Not really!

Yes, I’ve seen people who were pretty good (and eventually became great) at quant analyses since their first few cases.

But I’ve also seen people grow and develop this skill.

People who were previously “bad at math”, messy, confused. People who tried to improvise as they went because they honestly didn’t know how to plan a solution to the problem before solving it.

Some of them needed extensive coaching to get there. Others got there by themselves – often after a LOT of practice.

Yet, all of them only got there after realizing one thing, and one thing only: they realized that case math was just another skill.

Not something that’s “just for naturals”. Not something that “might eventually click if they try enough”.

To learn it you need a method that works and you need to practice it.

Just like any other skill.

Now, I’ll tell you about a method you can use to develop this skill in a bit. And also how to have a system to fall back to when things turn sour.

But before we get into that, there’s something important to talk about first…

See, no method will work if you focus on the wrong things.

That’s because any method you can use to improve your analysis skills will have different parts and teach a bunch of different things. And if you focus most your attention on the least important things and ignore the things that actually matter, you simply won’t improve.

In other words… 

There are two components of the “how to solve your math problems” blueprint: (1) knowing what really matters so you know what to focus on within any given method, and (2) actually having a method to improve so you can make rapid and predictable progress in your skills.

As I said, we’ll tackle the method soon enough, but first we need to tackle the 3 Big Myths of case math… 

The 3 big things that make people FOCUS ON THE WRONG THINGS and thus makes them spin their wheels, waste hundreds of hours and never really improve.


The 3 Big Myths of case math


Almost EVERY candidate who’s still having trouble with analytical questions despite trying to improve through more practice/preparation is operating under at least one of these big myths.

And the first step to improving is taking these out of the way…


Big Myth #1: "Doing fast mental math is all I need to do well"


You probably hadn’t had to do arithmetic without a calculator since high school. 

And it’s super uncomfortable to realize that doing long divisions and multiplying large numbers became challenging once again.

Maybe that’s why inexperienced candidates obsess over doing math in their heads, and think the faster the better.

Now, while most people are indeed rusty with their computations and will need to practice this a bit, the blunt truth is this:

It doesn’t freakin’ matter.

Yes, your interviewer wants to see that you’re numerically comfortable.

(You might need to do “out loud” math in front of your clients, after all, and it doesn’t hurt to look smart while doing it.)

But no, they don’t care if you’re a human calculator that can compute percentages half a millisecond faster than the next candidate.


You're probably never going to be as fast at math as this 10-year-old... Sad. But does it really matter?


In fact, if you can’t structure the math clearly enough before you “do the math”, your slick mental math skills are worth ZERO…

… Yet, if you can clearly outline an approach to your analysis better than anyone else, it doesn’t really matter than you’re a bit slow on the arithmetic side: your interviewer knows you’ll be the fastest to model an error-free analysis in the real job.


Big Myth #2: "I'm doing poorly because I'm bad at math / I don't know the right business formulas"


“Ah, if only I were a STEM person who was born doing calculus or an MBA who knows all the formulas…”

Then things would be easier, wouldn’t they?

Sadly no… Not really!



It’s funny… 

All the STEM people with analytical issues blame it on “not knowing the right formulas”, and all the MBAs with the problem blame it on “not being a math person”.

Now, the reality is that there are maybe 3 or 4 relevant formulas in case math, and they’re all extremely simple (you know, “Revenues – Costs”, or breakeven formulas). Heck, if you don’t know what a breakeven is, you can even ask!

All other “formulas” besides the most basic ones are designed so that you should be able to deduce yourself from the words of the problem, not recall from memorization.

(Which is actually kind of the point of these analyses.)

And the math itself? It’s 6th-grade one-variable equations.

Nothing fancy. No calculus or trigonometry. Not even quadratic equations.

What consulting firms really test is NOT how advanced your math skills are, or if you know the coolest business formulas. It’s not even how fast you are at “mental math” (as discussed above).

The thing they’re actually testing is your ability to get a real world problem, with all its context and nuances, and transform it into a structured math problem that you can solve (and one day, model in Excel).

If interviewers were keen on checking your advanced math skills, they'd ask you to price financial derivatives using the Black-Scholes formula. Clearly, that's not the point of doing cases with you...


Yes, being good at math helps.

And yes, not gonna lie, knowing some common business formulas does help as well…

But I bet 95% of the people who mess up analyses all the time could solve any of them easily if they came in clearly structured and all you had to do was the “solve for X” part…

… Which means if you can structure them well, your life will be much, much easier.

(And by the way, you don’t need a PhD or an MBA for that.)


Big Myth #3: "I just need to practice more math drills"


So, you have trouble with analyses… What do you do?

Most candidates just practice more. 

They download mental math apps. They look for math drills websites. Some do GMAT/GRE exercises, and most print dozens of casebooks in order to do just the math portion of (hundreds of) cases.

For a lucky few, this works: all they needed was indeed more practice.

But for the vast majority of people doing this, improvement is slow. Worse, they hit a (low) ceiling in performance quite quickly – and then they plateau.

Now, don’t get me wrong… 

I LOVE drills as a method to get targeted improvements in specific skills. If you’ve ever used any of our courses, you know we build them around practice drills because we believe in them so much as a tool to improve.

But there’s a problem…

To use drills to successfully improve, you first need to have a system.

Drills are a great way to solidify your skills and learn to apply them to a variety of situations.

But they aren’t good for learning “in a vacuum”.

In fact, if you just do drills without a method, without learning the technique first, you’ll just get FRUSTRATED.

Frustrated because you keep missing the answer.

Frustrated because you see the recommended answer and have no idea how they got there.

Frustrated because you do more and more work to improve and just feel “dumber”, because you’re not actually going anywhere.

And the reason why you have no method is very very simple… 

No one gave you one.

As one candidate said to me:

The way people teach you to solve case math usually involves some of the following:

  • They tell you you should create an equation to solve it (without telling you how)…


  • They give you a ton of “word problem”-style questions that are both easy and very similar to each other (and thus don’t cover the real stuff you’ll get in real interviews)…


  • They show you cute tricks to do mental math quickly, and emphasize it as if that were the “make or break” factor.


Of course, they pretty much IGNORE the fact that people who fail math questions almost always fail for two very particular reasons:

Failure Reason #1: They can’t reliably create the formulas/step-by-step approaches upfront, and end up needing to improvise as they go.

Failure Reason #2: They can’t extract ‘so-whats’ from the results of their analyses (often because they “tunnel-vision” into the math and lose perspective of the case).

So, obviously drills help… But only AFTER you HAVE A SYSTEM to reliably and predictably solve these questions.

And since none existed, Julio and I decided to create one…


We've looked into 193 real case math questions looking for the perfect system -- here's what we found...


Okay, so what is this system I keep talking about?

In fact, can you actually have such a system? I mean, all math problems are different, right?

Well, sure… But if there’s one thing I learned from consulting, it is the power of finding patterns by looking at massive amounts of data/situations.

And so, Julio and I got our hands dirty. We collected, analyzed and categorized 193 real case math questions.


A small sample of the analysis and chart questions we analyzed and categorized in order to create the Analytics Academy system.


We were in search of the hidden patterns and key techniques that’d RELIABLY help you structure, solve, and take great insights of virtually any analysis you could get in your cases.

More specifically, we were looking for 3 things:

Thing #1: Bulletproof math structuring techniques. We already knew a bunch of techniques that worked. But what were the key techniques that, if you knew, you could be confident you’d be able to create a clear step-by-step process to every single quant question, no matter how hard or overwhelming?

Thing #2: The KEY PATTERNS behind the most common analysis questions – We wanted to find the hidden patterns among those 193 questions so that you could learn how to solve any analysis way more efficiently. We later found out there are only 5 key “archetypes” of analytical questions that represent ~90% of what you’ll get in real interviews (more on that in a bit).

Thing #3: Only the right drills for you to practice and master analyses. We didn’t want to give you 900 questions to spent the next 6 months toiling away with nothing to show for it. Instead, we aimed for just the right drills to help you master structuring, mental math, and getting to the key “so-whats” of ANY analysis question (including those that fall beyond the “key patterns”).

And one more thing:

As we worked through the questions and started finding these patterns and the techniques that worked best… We decided we didn’t want to run the risk of it not being useful to real people with real “math issues”.

(In other words, we didn’t want to create a whole new method that only worked on paper…)

Which is why we thoroughly tested this method as we were creating it – in real-time, and with real candidates who felt challenged by analytical questions.


A couple of the many Zoom calls Julio did with candidates to test the method -- and hone it to perfection.
Some of these candidates were awake at 3am for these lessons. (Blurred faces for confidentiality.)


And as we polished this system, improved our live lessons and eventually put a handful of candidates as beta testers of our course... 

... We started seeing results like these:

In the end, we ended up crafting a method that:

  • Helps you go from “bottom 30%” (aka: you miss 50%+ of your analyses)  to “top 10%” in case math (aka: you solve them smoothly 95%+ of the time) in a deliberate way.


  • Gives you the confidence to know you’ll solve ANY analysis in a clear and deliberate way, even if you’ve never been a “math person”.


  • Focuses on what actually matters: the skills your interviewers are really looking for, the types of questions you’re truly going to get, and the patterns and techniques that’ll definitely help you when you’re in a critical moment in your interviews.

 

All that so you can learn this skill without having to work through a thousand math exercises, without having to second-guess how others got to the correct results, and without feeling like “something is missing” when it comes to the systems of solving case math.

We worked hard so you could have a no-bullshit, end-to-end system that just works.

And today, I invite you to check it out…



Introducing... The only practice-based case math program that focuses on math structuring, gives you the 5 key archetypes of analysis questions that get asked the most, and helps you prepare with just the right drills to improve the way you structure, solve and take insights from these questions.




Inside Analytics Academy, you'll find:

  • The most effective techniques for case math

    You'll learn to structure, calculate and take great insights from any math question you get.

    These are techniques based on first principles: exactly what real consultants do on the job, adapted to a case situation.

  • The 5 hidden pattern (or "archetypes") behind ~90% of analysis questions

    We've created principles, guidelines, and step-by-steps for each archetype so you always know exactly what to do.

    Also, we'll show you the common traps and insights to be aware of whenever you get one of these common questions.

  • Practice drills to master analyses

    You'll get 19 carefully crafted drills so you can MASTER the 5 archetypes.

    Also, some of the drills are "no archetype" questions so you can learn to apply the "first-principle" techniques even in odd questions.

  • Our Bonus Chart Interpretation module

    Multiple drills with complex charts from the actual consulting firms (not random casebooks).

    Plus, a "bonus within the bonus" video with all the "weird" charts consultants love the most (so you're never caught off-guard).

Here are just a few of the things you'll learn in
Analytics Academy:

  • The key mistake candidates make in their case math that makes them look like "wannabe consultants" (hint: it has nothing to do with the math itself).

  • Why playing the "speed" game is a high-risk, low-reward strategy to case math -- and what game to play instead.

  • The odd reason why having numbers too early in your solution will make your interviewer confused, unhelpful and unwilling to put you in front of a client.

  • Why you SHOULD NEVER use long equations (and even math trees) to structure math problems (and what to do instead).

  • The ONE KEY TECHNIQUE you need to structure any problem -- even if you have no idea how to structure it when you first see it (less than 10% of candidates do this).

  • The "backwards approach" to case math that makes your interviewer feel obliged to help you in the parts you get stuck.

  • The secret criterion in McKinsey's rubric that almost no candidate knows about -- and the "shortcut method" to always check this box and blow your interviewer's mind.

  • BREAKDOWN: See Julio systematically analyze a numerical result from FIVE different perspectives to create amazing insights about what the number means to the client.

  • The 80/20 of the 80/20 for fast mental math -- the ONLY 5 key techniques to calculate numbers quickly and accurately (that you can learn in just one day).

  • The "crystal ball method" Julio and I used to teach our coaching clients that stopped 70-90% of their arithmetic mistakes.

Learn the 5 key "archetypes" of case analyses so you're prepared to solve any math question you get

 


“If only there were patterns behind these analyses so I knew exactly what to do whenever I get a new question…”

Well, there are!

We’ve looked into 193 real case math questions and mapped out the 5 hidden patterns (or “archetypes”) that you need to learn. 

Understand and practice these and you’ll solve virtually any case math question with ease.

And once you learn these, your relationship with these types of questions will drastically change…

  • Instead of going into the interview anxious about getting stuck at a math question, you’ll instantly know how to solve 90%+ of questions they throw at you…

 

  • Instead of your mind freezing as soon as you get the question, you’ll immediately see the hidden patterns and know exactly how to structure it and what to say next…

 

  • Instead of getting “tunnel vision” and getting bogged down into the numbers, you’ll be in control and breeze through the math without ever losing the big picture of it…


Learning the 5 archetypes deeply will almost feel like having a “cheat sheet”… You’ll get the question and automatically know what you need to do to solve it.


Practice analysis drills to hone your skills and master even the toughest analyses out there



The only way to learn the techniques and archetypes in a way that they become second nature to you is through PRACTICE.

Which is why we’ve PACKED this course with practice drills.

(But not hundreds of surface-level math problems, just the right, realistic drills you need to master analyses.)

Each module related to an archetype comes with a series of detailed practice drills so you can learn – progressively, from easy to hard -- what it takes to solve an analysis of that specific type.

The drills will bring to reality the key steps, formulas, tricks and traps of that type.

We’ve also made a module with “no archetype drills”. These are questions that are not comprehended in the 5 archetypes but can be solved using the structuring techniques we’ll teach you in the course.

All of this to make you confident your analysis skills are bulletproof before your interviews.

Each drill also has “mini-lessons”.

These are smaller patterns that occur often within many analyses. Not knowing how to deal with them can derail unprepared candidates and turn successful interviews sour.

As with all our other courses, the drills in this one were cherry-picked and crafted with purpose, so they represent a wide variety of techniques, situations and industries. 

Finally, the drills are sequenced in a way that optimizes your learning. 

This is a course targeted to people who feel analyses are challenging, so we’ll slowly (but surely) work you up to the hardest questions without you feeling overwhelmed at any step of the way.


BONUS: Our deep dive on Chart Interpretation questions



We’ve also added a bonus module to Analytics Academy: the Chart Interpretation Deep Dive!

When interviewers want to focus on the structuring side of your analytical skills, they’ll throw an analysis question at you.

But when they want to focus only on the interpreting side of your analytical skills (aka: insights and “so-whats”), they’ll throw charts at you.

(Sometimes, several of them.)

That’s because a chart is an analysis that’s already done, and your job is to interpret what the results mean.

Now, many people who took the Chart Interpretation module of Case Interview Fundamentals told us the same thing over and over again: there are no good materials to practice this.

The few case prep materials that actually equip you to use charts have two main problems: (1) their charts are way too simple and easy compared to the ones you’ll find in your interviews, and (2) even though they give you an “answer key” with the insights you should’ve gotten, they don’t show you how you could’ve found those same insights through a systematic process.

In this bonus module, you’ll find plenty of high-quality practice.

There are 7 in-depth, HARD chart drills. All of them are (1) challenging, and (2) showing the specific process/rationale you’d need to have to be an “A player” in reaching the key insights you need.

All the charts are taken straight out of real consulting reports to real clients (some of these are public). This is because real consulting charts are tougher than the ones you’ll get in your cases – if you can do a good job with these, you can ace any case interview chart.

(And, of course, what your interviewer really cares about is if you can interpret charts from the real job.)

Finally, you’ll learn how to deal with situations where you get multiple exhibits that should be interpreted in tandem. When this happens in a real interview, it’s often an extremely challenging situation that overwhelms you. We’ll show you exactly how to deal with that.

This is a short, but massively valuable module if you’re having trouble with charts or simply want to get a “spike” in this skill that most candidates are unprepared for.


Frequently Asked Questions


I’ve tried everything to improve my ability to solve analytical questions and nothing has worked. How do I know this course will work for me?

This course was designed (and tested) exactly for people like you. 

When we created it, our goal was to help people who were able to do well in cases, but always fell short when it came to the analytical questions. It would make no sense if this course only worked for those already great at math.

As for why everything you’ve tried so far didn’t work… Well, that’s by design!

(Or lack of design, should I say?)

No other resource is designed and thought out specifically for people with this issue. They’re all either simple introductions on how to solve case math questions, or mindless exercises that assume you already have the ability to solve them consistently and just need more practice.

This course will give you a RELIABLE PROCESS to tackle these questions, and work you up for easier to hardest.

 

I have always been really bad at math, will this still work for me?

It depends.

If you’re really, really bad at math, then probably not. By that, I mean not being able to solve 99% of analysis questions, not even understanding them after someone walks you through them 1-on-1.

If that’s your case, you’d probably have to go back to fundamentals (basic arithmetic and algebra) or even reevaluate your career choices (you’ll not have a happy life in consulting).

That said, I’ve only met one candidate in my life who fit that description.

For most people, if you’re that bad at math, you wouldn’t even get an opportunity to interview in the first place.

So, if you have trouble solving math questions in case interviews, but can understand most of them after seeing a good teacher walking you through it, this course WILL work for you.

Also, it’s worth saying that this course focuses more on the “structuring equations” side of things than on the “arithmetic/mental math” side of things. It will help you with arithmetic (as any program that makes you solve several analytical drills), and does have some techniques to do mental math faster, but it isn’t the focus. If arithmetic is your only math-related problem, you probably don’t need most of this course.

 

Will this course work for math questions in pre-interview tests (PST, GMAT-like tests, etc.)?

Some offices/firms make candidates go through a written test before deciding who gets to interview with them or not.

Most of these tests have math questions in them (similar to GMAT questions).

These questions are completely different from the questions you’ll get in case interviews, both in the patterns within the math, as well as in the dynamics of solving those questions in a multiple choice scenario vs. talking out loud in the middle of a case.

This course will NOT help you with these tests (and, of course, prep materials for these test questions won’t help you get better at case math questions).

 

What if I get a question that doesn’t fall into the 5 archetypes this course teaches? Aren’t these like “frameworks” that will make the interviewer feel like I’m a robot?

Most questions (80-90%) you’ll find in your cases are either exactly the archetypes we teach, or they are compounded questions with 2-3 of the archetypes within it (for which this course will prepare you as well).

But even if you get a question that doesn’t fall within any of these archetypes, this course teaches you to think through them in a more systematic way and you’ll be way better prepared for them.

In fact, the course was designed for teaching you how to think through any math question – we just focus on the archetypes because they’re way more common (and harder) than all other questions.

Finally, for the “framework robot” concern, these aren’t like pre-made frameworks. 

They are merely patterns that you get to adjust and adapt specifically to the question you get. 

In a way, these 5 archetypes are kind of like the 5 ways to be MECE are to structuring cases… They aren’t frameworks per se, but logical shortcuts that help you pattern-recognize and structure problems in their unique way faster and more effectively.

 

Will analysis questions actually become one of my greatest strengths after taking this course?

Yes, if you put your effort into it and some extra diligence in the parts you find the most difficult (these are probably the parts you need the most).

Here’s why you can improve so much:

Most people have absolutely no system to fall back to when it comes to analytical questions.

Even people who are good at these questions…

They’ll still feel a bit uncomfortable whenever they get a math question and have absolutely no idea what to do when things go sour.

You, on the other hand, will be both (1) well practiced in the hardest analytical questions out there, and (2) reliant on a system that works and you can trust if things don’t go your way.

 

I’m extremely short on time. How much time do I need to go through this course?

Ideally, 2-3 focused weeks. 

If you have more time, that’s great too! The best you can do is to have this course as a companion through your preparation and learn the system in a slower way, along with training for other skills.

But if you’re REALLY short on time (i.e. 2-3 days), then you’re in for a big decision.

On one hand, you will not be able to complete the course before your interviews. Heck, it’ll even be hard to assimilate the stuff you do go through (one can only learn so much in a couple days).

On the other hand, if math is holding you back, and you’re at a high risk of rejection because of it, is there a better use of your time?

What I would do in your position is to: 

1) Immediately try to postpone your interview (usually can be done, and if you ask in a reasonable way there’s no risk for you as they do want you to succeed, aka not waste their time).

2) Get this course and try to go through the most important parts of it for you.

But again, it’s a tough decision that only you can make.


"What are my other options?"


We have had a lot of experience with candidates who have trouble with quant analyses, and we know there’s no other decent solution to it… Which is why we’ve created this course!

Still, it makes sense to go through an overview of what your other options are to improve your ability in math questions, so you can make the best decision for yourself.

 

Option #1: Overloading yourself with text-based drills (e.g. from casebooks).

You’ve probably already tried doing a bunch of math from cases in casebooks…

… And it probably didn’t help much!

Not only are most questions too easy, they’re also extremely similar to one another. Add to that the fact that they don’t really explain how they got to the answer, and practicing with them becomes little more than treading water.

Other sources of text-based drills (like some websites you may find online) aren’t much better.

They (1) optimize for volume, (2) are filled with unrealistic questions you’d never see in a case interview, and (3) most importantly, they offer absolutely no methodology for you to learn to go from point A (the question), to point B (a great answer).

Unless you’re already great at math, these options are time-wasters. 

Much better to learn a tested method that actually helps you learn realistic questions in a structured and predictable way.

 

Option #2: Focusing on GMAT-like math questions.

I’ve seen a lot of people trying to use math exam questions to “get more practice”.

Some even go back to high school algebra textbooks.

This never works.

Not only are the questions 100% different from the ones you’ll be facing, solving these questions don’t help you: (1) structure equations with incomplete/ambiguous information, (2) talk through the math, (3) relate the answer back to a business problem, (4) help you deal with the complexity (i.e.: number of steps) the most complicated case questions have.

In other words, this is a complete waste of time, unless you have a very specific high school math deficiency (e.g. you have trouble “solving for X”).

 

Option #3: Hiring a coach.

Finally a decent option!

Except for… The price tag.

Getting a private coach will almost always help you... But you’ll probably need 6-10 sessions to get meaningful results.

Bottom line: you’d be down $2,000-$3,000 to solve this issue with a coach.

If money is no issue for you, go for it! It’s nice to have personalized attention…

But if money is not unlimited, hear me up: Analytics Academy will bring you better, faster results than 99% of coaches could – even after a dozen 1-on-1 sessions.

And the reason is simple…

This course is the distilled knowledge of hundreds of coaching sessions (that we did personally back then as coaches), plus the rigorous synthesis of our study of almost 200 case math questions (which gives you an algorithm to solve each question type).

You’ll get hours and hours of the highest quality content and practice for case math for the same price one hour of coaching costs.

(And you’ll get a method that works each and every time – no coach can give you that because they haven’t spent the hundreds of hours Julio and I did cracking this code.)

Which makes me think… Even if you do have unlimited money, it’s probably a good idea to get this course along with the coaching. It’d cost 10% more, and more than double the speed you learn.

 

Option #4: Trying to deduce the patterns on your own.

We’ve actually met a handful of candidates who tried to do this!

(And I was impressed by the determination of each of them.)

Unfortunately it didn’t work well to any one of them.

They tried to categorize the questions on their own and then find the patterns within each type. It took them months to do so, and it still didn’t help much (their words, not mine).

But why?

Well, it’s a mix of an unrealistic and low diversity set of questions available in most materials online, with straight up lack of time on their end. 

(And by lack of time, I mean lack of months to do all this work.)

We know that because we went through the trouble of doing that for this course, and it took us almost a year to get it right. And we have the experience and judgement to do it way faster than your regular candidate.

So, if you want to give it a shot and try to overcome the odds, you can try deducing the patterns on your own. 

Or, you can join Analytics Academy and get it all done for you instantly.

 

Option #5: Do nothing.

This is what most candidates do.

They say they’ll try to overcome this challenge by being great at the other skills (structuring, creativity, business sense, etc.)…

But it doesn’t work that way.

Get an analysis wrong in a round of interviews, and your chances of passing have plummeted. Get two analyses wrong and you’re automatically out.

No matter how much of a genius you were in the rest of the interview.

Add to that the fact that the problem won’t go away on its own… And “doing nothing” is the one option where you can be almost certain of the outcome.

I’ll repeat myself: if you’re consistently getting these questions wrong, your chances of getting the offer are tiny, no matter how good you are at the other skills.

You do you, but if you’re asking for a friend, I’d tell them that if they chose this option, it might not even be worth going to the interview in the first place.

Try Analytics Academy for 30 days, 100% risk-free!


We've worked hard to make sure this is BY FAR the best program on math analysis and chart interpretation for case interviews available anywhere

We've tested every system, every technique inside the course with real candidates (many of whom instantly eliminated their weaknesses with this type of question). 

We know it works, and we know it will help you master analytical questions.

And we want you to see it by yourself - which is why we offer you to try the whole course risk-free for 30 days.

If after 30 days you don't LOVE this course, we want you to have 100% of your money back.

Just send us an e-mail, show us you did the work and we will return you 100% of the investment of the course. We'll even eat the credit card fees.

This guarantee lasts for 30 days, which is more than enough to go through the whole course.

You can learn our case math techniques, understand the 5 archetypes of analytical questions, and practice the drills inside this course that will help you solve any analysis and chart interpretation question - all 100% risk-free.



Join Analytics Academy NOW, and you'll get access to:


  • Math structuring techniques: the most effective ways to structure your analyses so that they're clear, accurate, and easy to follow.


  • Complete methods to do computations fast and accurately, take relevant "so-whats" and determine next steps in your analyses.


  • The 5 Archetypes of case math -- a "cheat sheet" of the 5 most common types of analytical questions that you'll get in 90%+ of your cases, along with principles, guidelines, step-by-steps and common traps of each kind. This is the secret sauce of this course that you won't find anywhere else and will make you feel in control whenever you get an analysis question.


  • Practice drills for each archetype so that you learn the ins and outs of each type of question, and master each type progressively, from easy to hard.


  • "No archetype" drills that will help you feel confident to tackle any math question, even the few percent that fall outside of one of the archetypes.


  • Our Chart Interpretation Deep Dive where we'll show you the main charts consultants use that aren't used in other industries and give you a crash course on how to map out, read and interpret complex charts. You'll also learn how to deal with multiple charts at the same time.

Get instant access to Analytics Academy now for just $197


You'll get 12-months of access to the whole material and will be able to start learning and practicing right now

Join Analytics Academy Now!

Two weeks from now, how good will your case math be?


If you take this course, it’ll be great – that’s what we’ve designed it for.

But if you keep doing what you’re doing, it’s probably not going to be very good, is it?

I mean, if you read this far, I bet you’ve tried a bunch of things.

Maybe you did targeted practice with mediocre materials… Maybe you just practiced cases, hoping for something to “click” and the problem to go away.

But it hasn’t gone away.

If you’re constantly messing up the math in your cases… If you’re constantly feeling insecure every time you get a math question, deep down you know you have virtually no chance of getting the offer, regardless how well you’re doing at the other skills.

And that’s fine.

It doesn’t really matter.

You know why?

Because you CAN learn this skill. In fact, you can learn it pretty quickly.

What Julio and I are offering you today, what you’ll find in Analytics Academy is highly compressed learning.

Join now, and two weeks from now you’ll be better than almost everyone you do cases with in analytical questions. 

We’ve designed this program to be as close as it can get from a “mental download” (kind of like when Neo gets out of the Matrix and mentally downloads kung fu, weapons training and a whole bunch of skills – god, I love that movie).

And with this new skill in your toolbelt, you’ll go into your interviews with a lot more confidence.

You’ll feel in control in each and every step of any analysis you get.

You’ll take the randomness out of the equation (pun intended).

Much more than that, you’ll take this skill with you for the rest of your career.

Yes, the rest of your career!

The truth is, once the cases are done, once you get your offers and start the job, you’ll have new challenges. 

Being able to solve real problems using math is something that’ll make a better consultant – and if you ever leave consulting, a better executive, or entrepreneur, or whatever you want to be in your life!

Now, what’s the alternative? This:



Two weeks from now, you can have a new superpower, or be slapped in the face (metaphorically, let’s hope!).

You can feel confident whenever you get a math question, or you can feel desperate.

You can be delighted of how well you’re solving them, or keep feeling frustrated that you’ll “never do this right”.

It’s gonna take some hard work, I’m not gonna lie. But at least, it’s going to finally work.

And when it works, things are going to change.

Two weeks from now, your case math skills will be drastically better.

Two months from now, you might have a new dream job.

Two years from now, your career will have skyrocketed. Twenty years from now, who knows what positive change this will bring to your life.

But for that to happen, you need to make a choice.

And I can’t make the choice for you. I can only show you the way.

So, what choice will you make today?

Get instant access to Analytics Academy now for just $197


You'll get 12-months of access to the whole material and will be able to start learning and practicing right now

Join Analytics Academy Now!