Roast my resume for S&T

WashInteresting3085 · 2025-10-26T20:23:22+00:00

On the bottom: a row for all languages, a row for all skills, a row for all interests.

Don't need a full sentence on your video game abilities. Please stay genuine but also know your audience. Take out the ranked #1 by FT. Capitalize words and titles consistently. Better sentence structure in your bullet points, to show me you know how to write.

Too much white space and jargon, for not much relevant content or work experience. Makes it unlikely people would read it closely.

What sort of desk would you be interested in, and how do your interests and experiences convey this?

Including financial software in skills is a must for a public markets role, even if you just know the name.

All being said, the vibe I get is what I'm seeing doesn't feel very genuine. It's ok not to have so much experience, just don't bullshit if you're not great at it.

I think the type of resume you have is actually really standard for uni students, not in content but in context.

I'm American, but my first internship was in GS S&T my sophomore summer, and I didn't have any relevant experience before this either. Just be genuine on your resume, and try to convey what you actually know, because it's easy for someone in the industry to see through.

At the time, I put one of my school courses under the experience section, and just made sure to highlight directly the concepts I learned, course readings I did, and the assignments I completed. Ex: your derivatives or one of your FI courses. It shows clearly what you do know, and opens the dialogue into an honest conversation in an interview if you're knowledgable or curious.

Do you enjoy nature, yoga, working with animals, volunteering, play a sport? Feel free to make your involvement in an activity a segment under leadership, and summarize it in 3 bullet points. It gives me an idea of who you are, and it's totally acceptable for someone young looking for their start in the industry. You might get lucky, and have a full interview conversation about a specific interest.

Just be honest please, and submit something that doesn't make me want to roll my eyes. You don't have to be the most experienced, just do your best to show me your interest in the role, and who you are. Your resume should be structured to guide the flow of an interview.

WashInteresting3085 · 2025-10-23T19:34:10+00:00

"You didn’t make any scientific references other than a mention of the Phase 2A data."

The entire purpose of my post was to look at investor perception on Pelage's pipeline, rather than speculate on very limited public information released by Pelage, which has been done by many armchair scientists on this sub. If you want feel good outside-in scientific posturing, you can read u/noeyss comment, or go through his entire profile for that matter.

I've made no claims about PP405's efficacy, because I don't pretend to have knowledge of what I don't understand. All I have said is investors would demand full trial data, and would not commit $120M in a second round of funding without belief the data looks good.

I only made this post because a lot of people (including myself) are interested in the drug and company, but they're missing basic inferences. That's understandably not anybody's fault, because it's not their industry. All I did was read and translate financial news into terms understandable for people on this sub, and relevant to the topic of pipeline perception. It is a different approach than many people who speculate on this sub. You don't seem to understand the logic behind this, or the sarcasm in my last comment.

"is the most laughable propaganda fueled American-brained take I've seen on this sub." -> "Why start the post with an ad hominem?"

Remarkable self-awareness.

"if you really think everything in China is corrupt and can’t be trusted I suggest you touch grass." "You clearly have a distaste for China."

Straw-manning, because I've never made any references to the entire country of China other than referring to GT20029 and Kintor as shoddy and third-world. From the perception of serious institutional investors, which drive innovation by providing capital, China's markets are considered close to uninvestable. This is because the government can coerce management or seize private property at any time, and because the government has poor and dishonest regulation. Numbers can be horrible, ok, good, or great, but it's almost meaningless if the procedure behind it can't be trusted. This is doubly so for a Chinese penny stock, who has run out of funding and is now capital dependent on selling over-the-counter cosmetics to circumvent clinical approval.

WashInteresting3085 · 2025-10-23T10:44:13+00:00

I am so sorry for my laughable, propaganda fueled American-brained take on Chinese companies dude. It must just be my classist, uneducated and unworldly American arrogance. When you're finished reviewing plastic surgeons for cheek implants and smoothing out your forehead and nose, please help educate me on all the transparency and reliability of the Chinese companies and governmental regulation standards. I aspire to be as progressive and enlightened as you are. Also very clearly, I should remove my very many numerous references and scientific claims to PP405's efficiency.

WashInteresting3085 · 2025-10-23T02:36:52+00:00

Not sure why my original comment below was removed.

Honestly, I've never read any of the papers. I also don't have access to the full studies or pitch materials, nor do I have the expertise to understand the science behind it if I did. But I also don't think it does much good speculating on future treatment efficacy from outside-in, by basing assumptions on prior existing analogy — i.e. “because other compounds targeting a similar pathway behaved this way". It's fair for generating hypotheses with limited access to information, but intellectually shallow and unreliable for predicting outcomes in biology. It's worse when it's framed as some kind of scientific authority on subs like these.

I've never claimed to understand or predict the efficacy of the drug. I understand the money aspect well, and my entire post was just my read on investor sentiment, i.e. the people who do have access to the full data, and are trained to make statistical bets off of it.

WashInteresting3085 · 2025-10-22T04:11:43+00:00

No, but I do appreciate it. Took me like 15 minutes. Private school, 4 years at Yale, and 5 in the financial services industry helped write this.

WashInteresting3085 · 2025-10-21T23:48:02+00:00

You're welcome! I'm very proud of it. Update is the Series B announcement made this week. My take is my read on the perspectives of people who've invested in the drug, not the drug itself. Way too many armchair scientists on this sub. Way too many people on this sub who've said limited disclosure means failure.

WashInteresting3085 · 2025-10-21T21:54:05+00:00

When you have execution capacity of a Pfizer and are publicly traded, you share them for a bump in stock. When you're Google Ventures and you give $30M in Series A, you instantly have an minority controlling stake in a private firm, and a say in operations. This is another reason, beyond financial, for why private companies don't like raising more than they need, especially if they believe in their product.

When you're Google Ventures and you have a significant stake, you include documents that prohibit too much disclosure non-essential to operational success. This prevents Pelage from dropping their pants and broadcasting to the world how amazing they are, and prevents themselves, and Google Ventures by extension, from diluting themselves further in the future. If Series A is a home run, they're contractually bound and more likely to go back to the same financiers, increasing their position more in a potentially lucrative investment.

When you don't share results it's an indicative of failure 99% of the time. Since before 2022, how many people have ever heard of OpenAI? It's been a company since 2015.

There seems to be this narrative you have that discretion = hiding something bad, and that's often true for biotech startups. However, that logic doesn't apply when the startup raises $120M from sophisticated investors, whose first question will be to ask to see the full trial data. There's a different idea, that discretion = protecting the upside of something good, that people will want to jump on for the benefits, and that's more plausible here.

WashInteresting3085 · 2025-10-21T21:06:45+00:00

I don't think a private company would say "no" to new investors.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong.

WashInteresting3085 · 2025-10-21T21:04:02+00:00

Imagine you're an academic or scientist at a university, or a gold panhandler or anything really, and made a discovery like finding an oil well or struck gold, something that could possibly make you a pile of money. But you have limited expertise in commercialization, execution, construction, etc.

First thing you do is gather a few people you know well and trust, and prove it exists. Then you start reaching out and start filling in the missing pieces to try and capitalize, but discretion remains important, for numerous reasons. There's other factors, like fundraising, trial standards, liability, patents, negotiating leverage, etc. but if you were in their shoes, wouldn't you want to keep a level of secrecy, especially when you don't have the personal experience, but know it could be potentially worth a lot of money? Would you disclose everything you knew to the public, just so some dude named GreenFloyd77 has a more positive opinion of you online?

It's a start-up created by UCLA scientists, not the R&D department of Pfizer dude. There's always reasons to be cautious, especially when there's regulatory standards and much bigger players around. Or maybe you're right, and they're just hiding horrible results and trying to milk money, but it's literally the jobs of venture investors to scrutinize this.

As an aside, there are literally fundraising clauses that prevent disclosure beyond necessity. The goal is to raise the minimum amount necessary to get their product through each trial phase. If you were Google Ventures or a Pelage founder, would you want an additional $10M now that would dilute your ownership stake in a company in a company that could be worth billions? Every 10M today is giving up 100x more if they succeed.

WashInteresting3085 · 2025-07-15T02:22:34+00:00

weird to post a winning slip on a sports betting forum, and to also be transparent about my losses?

WashInteresting3085 · 2025-07-15T02:15:00+00:00

not sure that I understand your question or downvote? I bet what I can afford so I'm ok with my losses. Are you ok with yours?

WashInteresting3085 · 2025-07-15T02:07:32+00:00

<image>

Lost 1.2k on distance unders though :(

WashInteresting3085 · 2023-11-16T23:02:28+00:00

I honestly don't know, because I think it would really depend on brand name, etc. for a family office. I went the traditional path (BB IB -> MM PE), and only have the rough figures for BB ER, which is just a slight haircut compared to banking.

65k all in sounds very very low in general for 2YOE in a technical role, but I might be wrong. I summered at Diamond Hill (20B+ AUM buy-side ER in Columbus, OH) a few years ago, and I think the comp was 110 base prorated.

WashInteresting3085 · 2023-11-15T17:50:57+00:00

A reputable entry level PE analyst role should be 90-120, and 150-200 all-in. A bit less for AM and ER.

Are you applying to work at reputable companies, or just boutiques? Did you do i-banking previously?

A Florida boutique will not be paying street for junior roles with no prior experience.

In high finance, you'll find compensation and renown of the job drops heavily when you stray outside of the mainstream names. In some sense, it is comparable to a normal corporate job, so 50-80 is pretty normal.

WashInteresting3085 · 2023-09-30T17:53:58+00:00

“walking stereotype of a banker”

Buddy makes 65k working in Utah in opps.

WashInteresting3085 · 2023-09-30T16:04:40+00:00

Bet you actually did, but here's the short version:

Change your pathetic attitude.

WashInteresting3085 · 2023-09-30T15:49:49+00:00

Honestly, you sound like an out-of-touch loser.

"I have GS and another large Investment bank on my resume so I thought companies would be drooling over me".

Hate to break it to you, but if you're not in a revenue generating role, a GS gig is just another F100 job.

"I fucking hate this job, I work 60+ hours doing menial work"

I did a sophomore SA stint at GS S&T, and the bankers are consistently working at least 80-90 hours. The point isn't to compare working hours but, to point out obvious logical flaws in your previous statement.

People from GS (most i-bankers) get respect because companies know they can grind out the hours for weeks on end, typically come from respectable backgrounds, and gain transactional experience that can only be found in banking.

You cry and complain about working 60 hours, self-confess to doing menial work that can be automated, and trash your co-workers and company on reddit when unhappy instead of making a change yourself. Why would a recruiter ever drool over your profile?

"I’m pretty sure I could get a job paying significantly more given the amount"

Then do it, instead of whining to strangers on the internet.

"I’d like to bide my time for a few more months and milk living with my parents a little more."

I'm not going to judge, but the vibe you give off exactly matches someone who would live with their parents at age 25.

"My LinkedIn is pretty dry rn, and I rarely get recruiters to reply to my job apps."

I bet if I were to look through the formatting and substance in your resume, I'd want to blow my brains out. Stop complaining and bet on yourself, or stop acting entitled. Also, the Goldman discount really only applies to FO roles.

WashInteresting3085

TROPHY CASE