CASE INTERVIEW
You are handed a dense pack of information.
Fifty pages. Maybe more.
Charts, customer interviews, market data, competitor profiles, financials.
Your PhD brain knows what to do.
Read everything carefully.
That instinct can become expensive very quickly.
Because the presentation case is not really asking whether you can understand 50 pages.
It is asking whether you know which 45 pages do not deserve to reach the client.
The data pack looks like an exam... but there may be no correct way to use all of it
Research trains you to respect evidence.
So when information is provided, ignoring it can feel irresponsible.
You begin reading page one.
Then page two.
Then page three.
Twenty minutes later, you know a lot about the company.
You may still have no story.
Information is not the deliverable.
The deliverable is a recommendation supported by enough evidence that a client can act.
That changes the order of operations.
Instead of starting with, “What does every page say?”
Start with: “What decision am I solving?”
Then hunt for the evidence that changes that decision.
For a deeper explanation of how these formats work, read Consulting Written Case Interviews.
Your first five slides should not be five interesting findings
This is where presentation cases become deceptive.
You may find five excellent insights:
- Market growth is slowing.
- Segment A has the highest margins.
- Competitor B has expanded distribution.
- Customer churn is rising.
- The company has excess production capacity.
All interesting.
But placed side by side, they may still tell no story.
A client presentation is not a collection of good observations.
Each slide has to earn the next slide.
Imagine your recommendation is that the client should enter Segment A through its existing distribution network.
Now the slides have jobs:
- establish why growth requires a new source of revenue;
- show why Segment A is attractive;
- show why the client has an advantage there;
- quantify the economics;
- state the recommendation, risk, and next step.
Suddenly, half the pack becomes background.
That is not sloppy.
That is prioritization.
The slide title is where another PhD habit gets exposed
Researchers often use descriptive titles.
“Market Overview.”
“Customer Analysis.”
“Competitive Landscape.”
Perfectly understandable.
And almost useless to an executive skimming five pages.
A consulting slide title should often carry the conclusion.
“Segment A offers the strongest growth and margin combination.”
“Existing distribution cuts entry investment by 30%.”
The chart underneath becomes proof.
The title should do analytical work.
A useful test is to read only your slide titles in sequence.
If they tell the story, you have probably built a presentation.
If they sound like chapter headings, you may have built a report.
Then someone asks you to remove four slides
This is where the case gets interesting.
Suppose you prepared five slides and the interviewer says:
“You now have two minutes. Give me the recommendation using one slide.”
What stays?
Not your prettiest chart.
Not necessarily the analysis that took the longest.
The slide that survives is the one that protects the decision.
That is why practising extreme compression can be so useful. One-Slide Case Interview: Structuring Under Extreme Time Pressure goes deeper into that discipline.
The trick is not reading faster
You can practise speed reading.
You can become faster in Excel.
You can learn PowerPoint shortcuts.
All useful.
But none solves the central problem.
The real skill is choosing what does not deserve your attention.
In academia, leaving a relevant result unexplored can feel uncomfortable.
In consulting, refusing to prioritize can be more dangerous.
The clock forces the choice.
So when you open that 50-page pack, do not ask how you will get through all of it.
Ask which five pages could change your recommendation.
Then notice something strange.
You may never need the other 45.