Really enjoyed the phone interview with HR representative. One of the two 1 on 1 interviews was less enjoyable. The first interview was were I think I tripped up. It was a case based on an actual engagement that the consultant had worked on. The case involved estimating distribution costs for individual products. I started by listing all fixed and variable costs associated with distribution of a product. We then focused on transportation costs. After some confusing discussions on what they wanted to do: obtain unit costs per product, I was able to boil the problem down to fuel costs (mileage and gas price) and space occupied inside the delivery truck. From the total amount spent on distribution for a given route, I then determined the cost per unit based on the distance traveled and the volume of occupancy inside the truck. This was simple division. While this might seem straightforward, it was not obvious during the interview as the interviewer kept moving between total domestic distribution costs and costs associated with a single product and a single route. I wanted to relate them, but he wanted me to examine only the simplest case, so I started using averages, but then I sensed he didnt want averages, but instead wanted me to provide a single example. Because of the switching between macro and micro analysis, I became a bit confused and believed additional information would be necessary. For instance, for routes where traffic caused significant delays or where weather was an ongoing concern, there would be higher costs associated with labor, maintenance, and insurance. Thus, for a given route, the costs for a specific product would be higher even if it occupied the same amount of truck volume and traveled the same distance as the same product on a different route. I tried to explain this as route costs versus product costs. At the end, I made the mistake of saying that this case could have been explained much simpler that it was. I know I insulted the interviewer.... or maybe I was missing the point: he wanted to confuse me.... The second interview was the better of the two for me as it was a market sizing question: estimate the size of the lacrosse equipment market. I think I performed well on this one, although I did assume all high schools had a lacrosse team, which apparently is not accurate in the mid west. My overall impression is still positive of the firm. I think they do interesting work and hire smart people. My only criticism is that both consultants seemed to be a bit edgy and in-personal. They also made the company sound like a place for singles who live to work. I am not sure I would have fit into this type of culture. Another negative is that when I was notified that I will not be moving on, I asked for feedback and was told that they don't provide feedback. So i got a sub-par grade and I never got the test back to see what I did wrong. This is an unfortunate reality in the consulting industry. Just another reason, McKinsey is set apart in the consulting world.