Consulting and IT-services firms as a first job: for and against

The case against

A long discussion listed why some candidates avoid these firms: maintenance work instead of new building, deadlines set by the client contract, bureaucracy, lower pay than product companies, little investment in developing engineers, frequent project changes, and a view among some hiring managers that the work is less technical.

A second-hand account explained the deadline pressure: firms bid for projects, a low bid wins, and the team absorbs the squeeze. One graduate without a computing degree described being placed in an engineering role with no onboarding and work far beyond their training.

The case for

Moderators and people inside these firms pushed back. Their points: experience varies by team and some teams do good work; you see many tools and clients quickly; training budgets and learning funds are real; and in a weak market a job with a known name beats none. For the large audit and advisory firms, candidates described long hours but strong exit options, with former staff preferred by many later employers.

A test you can apply

The heuristic that came up most: is the team an IT department that supports the business, or an engineering team that builds what the business sells? The same question separates good and bad roles inside one firm. Insiders advised asking exactly what you will work on before accepting, and treating a vague answer as the answer. We think that one question is worth more than any ranking of firms.

What do they pay?

Graduate pay at these firms is fixed and narrow, by candidates' accounts. At the large audit and advisory firms, starting pay was described as a band set by degree class and prior internship, with small yearly increases at junior levels. Technology-services graduate programmes paid somewhat more. Recruiters at one consultancy said plainly that all graduates receive one package, and commenters added that only a competing offer creates room.

A related caution: later employers were said to anchor on your current salary, so the starting figure matters beyond year one.

Contract terms to read twice

• Bonds. Reported from 18 months at a small consultancy to five years at one graduate programme, where candidates said most people leave before the end.
• Trial contracts. A graduate offered three months at intern pay with only a possibility of a permanent role was told by others to treat it as a warning sign.
• Notice. Some staffing-style firms ask junior staff for three months of notice.
• Title. At one small consultancy, interviewees confirmed that engineers are given the title of consultant. Check what your contract will say.
• Offer deadline. One candidate was given three days. Ask for longer.

How they hire

These firms rely on assessments more than most. Candidates reported multi-stage funnels: a short online test, an aptitude or game-based assessment, a recorded one-way video interview, a group exercise, then a manager interview. Several asked the same question about one aptitude stage four times in three days and got one reply. Some applicants were rejected with no test at all.

This is the part of the process you can prepare for directly: the aptitude tests, games and recorded interviews are standard formats.

Questions to ask before accepting

• Which client or project will I start on, and for how long?
• Will I be building, maintaining or testing?
• What training do new graduates get in the first month?
• Is there a bond? What does it cost to leave at 12 months?
• How do people usually move off a project they are not learning from?