I’m a few months out from recruiting and honestly feeling the pressure of my network gaps. I’ve got a handful of contacts but nothing systematic. The problem isn’t that I don’t know how to network—it’s that I don’t know who to prioritize when I’ve got limited runway and even more limited connections.
I’ve been reading through discussions here and seeing people talk about mapping high-impact outreach, but I’m curious about the filtering logic. Like, if you had 50 names to potentially reach out to, how would you actually decide which 20 get your real effort? Is it firm tier first? Function? Alumni status? Something about the person’s current role that makes them more likely to help?
I’m not looking for a generic networking template—I want to understand the real decision-making framework that separates the contacts worth your first effort from the ones you circle back to later. What’s your actual filtering system?
Your prioritization matrix should weight three primary factors: firm placement success rate, recruiter proximity (1-2 degrees ideally), and recency of their entry into that firm. If someone joined McKinsey 18 months ago, they’re exponentially more useful than a 10-year partner. Track your outreach success rates by category—alumni typically convert 2-3x better than cold reaches. I’d start with your strongest 15 across these dimensions before expanding. Quantify results early to validate your approach.
Research hiring manager names at your target firms—these people have real influence. Cross-reference against LinkedIn connections and alumni networks. People actively hiring are measurably more responsive. Secondary tier: current consultants at your target level (not partners). They remember the recruiting grind and can actually advise on resume specifics. Third tier handles your exploratory asks. This hierarchy works because you’re matching contact influence to your ask complexity.
oh wow this is so helpful! i think prioritizing recent hires makes total sense bc they remember the process better. plus firm tier def matters more than i thought. ty for breaking this down—gonna start mapping my list right now!
You’ve got this! Start with alumni and recent hires—they’re your warmest starts. Track everything you learn and celebrate each conversation. Your network will grow faster than you think!
I actually did something similar when I was prepping. I had maybe 20 solid contacts and I basically cold-called my alumni network first—got two informational interviews just from persistence. Then I branched to people who’d joined Target firms in the last 18 months. Honestly, the recency thing matters way more than I expected. Newer people were so much more willing to actually help versus the senior folks who seemed guarded.
One thing that worked for me: I looked at people’s career transitions. If someone moved from consulting to tech, they tend to be more responsive to students asking for advice—they’re not gatekeeping. Sounds weird but I got better response rates that way than hitting up the career consultants.
Your instinct is sound. The most strategic approach prioritizes three dimensions in sequence: first, identify the specific firms where you’re genuinely committed—this focus prevents scattered outreach. Second, within those firms, target individuals who entered within 24 months and work at your target level or one above. They retain fresh perspective on what impressed admissions. Third, verify these contacts have demonstrable engagement on LinkedIn or professional networks—responsiveness correlates strongly with role transition recency. Finally, maintain a secondary list of senior contacts for deeper exploratory conversations once your fundamentals are solid.
I’d also emphasize documenting your outreach patterns early. Track who responds, timing, message approach, and their tenure. After 25-30 outreaches, patterns emerge about what messaging resonates with different cohorts. This creates a feedback loop where you’re continuously optimizing rather than guessing. Many candidates miss this—they treat networking as one-off asks rather than a data-gathering exercise.