Day 0: Attend campus recruiting session. Submit application to APD program (Advance Professional Degree- ie everything above a bachelors but not MBA). Day 7(ish): Show up to local McKinsey office and take written test. 40-some questions in 40 minutes. All are case-based, lots of reading, no one ever finishes the whole thing. Then do three "practice" cases in teams of four with different consultants. Day 8-9: Hear back and schedule 2nd round. Get contacted by "buddy" who answers question on process and lifestyle. Day 12: Get contacted by partner in Cleveland office, get asked to consider putting Cleveland as top pick (hint, hint: it'll make you more likely to get an offer). Day 13: Put San Francisco as top offer. Attend case workshop on campus. Day 18(or so): 2nd round interview in local office. 3-4 case interviews 1-on-1 with different consultants/associates. Great conversation, interesting people. Day 18-19: Hear back and schedule 3rd round in San Francisco. Day 30?: Fly to SF, have dinner with non-interviewing consultants (most new and APD) in private room at restaurant. Everyone's friendly, helpful and encouraging. Day 31(?): 3 1-on-1 with associates and a partner. Flub third interview, make math interview in 2nd one, nail 1st one. Lunch with other candidates (half are really cool and nice, half are giant tools). Day 32: Fly home, get a bad call. Overall I was impressed with the professionalism and courtesy shown to me at every stage. Frankly, as my first real interview I had no expectations of advancing and was happy to get a free trip to San Francisco, talk to some smart people, and learn a lot about business. Throw in the invaluable interview-mentoring (that helped me nail my interviews at a competing firm) and I see no downside to at least applying. A few things stood out, especially after interviewing elsewhere. First, the almost OCD attention to detail. In an actual case, there's getting things right and there's getting things precise. McK has a reputation for automatically knocking candidates that make a quant error oof any magnitude. In my case, maybe it was enough (I multiplied by 2/3 instead of 3/2); but ultimately other firms are more concerned about seeing the nature of the problem and coming up with creative solutions. I clearly was good at math in all my other interviews, but that one mistake cost me. When the interviewer called to relay the bad news, he told me the vote was 2-to-1 for but that the math error cost me the spot, then he said it was a ridiculous reason to not hire me. Second, the endless march of bureaucracy in hiring. I mean look at that schedule. An in-office test, practice sessions, three rounds of interviews. It takes a ton of time and puts some strain on you while waiting/prepping. McK needs to work on streamlining their process: at my current firm students take the test online, do the first round within a week, and then three days later do an in-office final with a decision by that night. Maybe it's the cache of McK, but for a firm in the business of finding efficiency, the process could use some.