I realized recently that I’ve been treating all coffee chats like they’re equal in terms of value, and that’s probably dumb. Some conversations are way more useful than others, but I’ve been tracking everything the same way—which is to say, not tracking at all.
I’m trying to figure out how to actually measure whether a coffee chat is moving me closer to an internship or if I’m just collecting business cards and LinkedIn connections. Right now, I’m doing this manually, but I want a system that actually helps me adjust on the fly.
I’ve been trying to categorize chats based on a few things: Did I learn something specific about the group or desk? Did the person give me actionable feedback on my resume or pitch? Did they agree to a concrete next step—like an intro or a follow-up call? And then, critically: did that next step actually happen?
It sounds simple, but it’s revealing a lot. Turns out some of my coffee chats come from people who are way further removed from hiring than I thought, and me spending an hour with them is basically dead time. Other chats lead to actual momentum—follow-ups with the right person, feedback that actually changes how I’m positioning myself.
I’m now prioritizing based on these signals and being way more selective about who I actually chase down. Has anyone else built something like this, or am I just being neurotic about the whole thing?
u should have been doing this from day one. most ppl waste time on low-signal contacts and wonder why their network isnt working. track who actually has power to hire or refer, who actually listens to u, and who isnt worth the time investment. if someone isnt moving u forward after one chat, move on. its not mean, its efficient.
neurotic? nah, ur being smart. most ppl are so desperate for connections they treat every handshake like it matters. real talk: 70% of ur coffee chats prob wont matter. get comfortable cutting ppl off and focusing on the signal. bankers respect that anyway.
oh wow so people actually track this stuff? i thought it was weird to have a system for it but now i feel better lol
this is genius actually. how do u even start measuring something like this tho
You’re not being neurotic—you’re practicing what efficient operators do, which most students don’t. The key insight is distinguishing between information-gathering conversations and relationship-building conversations with actual network effect. Someone two rungs below you on the ladder might have interesting perspective, but they probably can’t materially move your candidacy. That doesn’t mean the chat was worthless; it just means it shouldn’t get the same follow-up investment as a conversation with a senior banker or recruiter. The framework you’re building—signal assessment, specificity of feedback, concrete next steps—is exactly right. I’d add one layer: after each chat, rate the person’s actual influence within their firm or the broader banking ecosystem. That becomes your prioritization metric. High influence + positive signal = priority for follow-up. Low influence + vague engagement = archive and move on.
What you’re describing is the difference between networking by quantity and networking by quality. Most undergrads default to quantity—they want as many coffee chats as possible, thinking volume creates probability. But that’s inefficient. A well-structured system like yours ensures you’re concentrating effort on conversations that actually create optionality. The fact that you’re identifying patterns—which chats led to momentum, which ones stalled—is exactly how you build a self-correcting process. Most people never close this loop. They just keep doing the same thing and hoping.
You’re being intentional! That’s the opposite of neurotic—that’s being smart and data-driven. Love that you’re refining your process as you go!
This mindset is going to serve you so well! You’re being strategic, not wasting energy, and learning fast. That’s excellence!
This is precisely how successful recruiters and networkers operate. The metrics you’re tracking—specificity of feedback, concrete next steps, actual follow-through—are lag indicators of signal quality. I’d suggest adding a lead scoring component: does this person have hiring authority? Can they introduce you to someone who does? Did they provide feedback that changes your narrative? Coffee chats scoring high on these dimensions should get exponentially more of your attention. Over a six-month cycle, you might conduct 50+ coffee chats, but probably only 5-10 will actually convert to interviews. Identifying those 5-10 early allows you to concentrate resources appropriately rather than spreading yourself thin pursuing every connection equally.
You could formalize this further with a simple spreadsheet: person’s name, their level, their desk, date of chat, key feedback received, whether they offered an intro, follow-up actions. Then rank each chat 1-5 based on signal strength. This creates a tangible prioritization system. Realistically, about 60% of coffee chats will be low-signal exploratory conversations. Those are fine for learning about the industry, but they’re not your conversion pathway. The remaining 40% that generate real feedback or connections deserve your follow-up energy. This discipline is what separates people who network effectively from people who just network a lot.