To be upset about ‘university blind’ recruitment

I think it really depends on the type of thing they’re going into. Certainly, for any Master’s programmes, they will want to know where they did their undergrad - not only that, but they will require the transcripts from all 3 years. A lot of academics in certain disciplines are aware of each other anyway, so they will know of the academics writing the references.

In terms of job opportunities afterwards, yes I’m sure blind recruitment is a thing in some sectors and that’s fine. In other sectors, it’s the opposite, as far as I can see right now. Certain employers or recruiters come to networking events, offer all kinds of opportunities. It’s like one minute they’re chatting to someone and the next they’re being flown to Boston for an interview. I really don’t think Oxbridge students have anything to complain about. If their application anywhere is strong, it will speak for itself. Nobody is owed anything and they all need to think flexibly, regardless of what they studied and where.

I think it’s a good thing. Why should going to Cambridge mean you then always get your own way?
Employers want who is right for them, and don’t want to be pressured in to picking someone just because they went to Cambridge.

If I was doing blind recruitment I would immediately bin any application that went against the ethos of blind recruiting.

He can volunteer or work at Cambs based places and put on his CV

This sounds so unnecessarily bitter and mean-spirited.

So you're blessed enough to have a child who did so well, and has a place at Cambridge and instead of feeling happy you're whining and complaining. I mean for gods sake OP, as we say round here, you don't know you're born. Stop being so entitled and negative.

And btw do you really see no point in going to Cambridge if you can't use it as leverage for a job? What about the LEARNING that will take place there, the life experiences and everything else?!

And this recruiting blind thing...I guess that's to get the best person for the job which might or might not be Oxbridge. So what?!

Just the entire Civil Service, any local government jobs and a swathe of major international firms. 😂

Is your DS going to Cambridge because he believes it will provide him with a world-class education in a field he is passionate about, access to the leading experts in that area, opportunities to take advantage of incredible resources both academically and recreationally, and a network of talented contacts with similar interests, or is he going to Cambridge because he thinks having "Cambridge University" on his CV will make him look clever?

@Newname576 if it's any consolation, lots of employers aren't doing this and won't do this 😂 particularly the top ones!

I know how you feel - I went to Oxford University in the 1990s having been to a very ordinary comprehensive school.

That was obviously a huge achievement esp back then.

Now everyone is University blind!

But I don’t worry as I know I can compete and do well even without that on my cv.

In blind recruitment applications you are supposed to tailor your CV so that you do not include titles of the sort you mentioed, or similar types of identifying information.

The MA stays, obviously, but it’s just
Enterprise Award 2024, Scholarship 2023, Student Rep 2023, etc. People doing blind recruiting have written either upthread or elsewhere on the Board (it’s been a while since I’ve read on the topic) how annoying it is when candidates try to sneak their Oxbridge credentials onto their CVs.

Going to Cambridge will give your son many incredible advantages which will benefit him hugely in life. The name recognition of a prestigious university is only one of those advantages, so while it may seem like he’s losing a string from his bow with this policy, he will still have the other benefits associated with a world class education.

It sounds like he has done brilliantly to obtain his place, and you must be so proud of him. It’s natural that you want future employers to know how impressive his achievement is. But have faith that the skills and talents which got him his place, along with the wonderful education he will receive, will set him in good stead for finding employment one day, even if in the first instance prospective employers don’t know where he went to university.

It is also helpful to consider that very few employers truly care where a person went to university. I work for a professional services firm which is one of the top three in the country. I have colleagues who studied at Oxbridge and colleagues who studied at universities which aren’t in the Russel Group and aren’t prestigious. It’s no indication of their abilities and talent for the job. It’s only one very small part of the reasons they were hired.

Your son’s Cambridge education is a wonderful achievement and will be an incredible experience in and of itself. It doesn’t diminish the value of his education that some employers won’t immediately know where he got his degree.

For all the internships my DC has applied for, they know perfectly well where they went to uni because they have to supply their stamped / officially headed exam transcripts (with a breakdown of grades), references from tutors. Things like referrring to the degree as ‘the tripos’ on transcripts would make it obvious it was Oxbridge. As would any personal statement about why you were applying for the role. Obviously, if you’ve been involved in societies at Cambridge, held any positions of responsibility etc etc, this is all in the CV - eg. Jesus College Enterprise Award 2024, or St John’s Choral Scholar or Peterhouse Student Rep 2023 or whatever. It’s obvious where they went, without naming it. Also, they get an MA, even if it’s STEM (it’s not an actual MA, just what they call it). I know some Scottish unis do this too, but you can generally tell where someone went to uni, just from all the other stuff that will be included in their application.

When I was at Cambridge our exams were only moderated by academics at UCL, Bristol etc, whose courses probably were of comparable standard. They weren’t moderated by ex polys which didn’t run a comparable degree course in any case (e.g similar courses at these universities had no language element whereas we had to do almost all our work in two original languages).

A belief that an Oxbridge degree is of the same standard as a degree at any other university requires the belief that students who get DDD at A level and go to a university who will accept them with those grades accelerate their progress so much at university that they catch up with and overtake students who go into Oxbridge with 4 A*s and end up with the same degree grade.

In the meantime Oxford and Cambridge, despite being so well resourced and requiring students to submit a huge number of essays etc compared to other universities, is achieving far lower outcomes for their students in the context of their starting point?

Sometimes that will be true and recruitment should allow for that. There will be very bright students who don’t reach their potential at A level. But on average if Oxbridge students are more academic going in they are probably more academic coming out.

My experience was that I was top of my school, top of law school, came top in professional exams but was completely average at Cambridge.

Of course being the person most able to succeed at Oxbridge doesn’t necessarily mean you’re the best candidate for the job. But sometimes academics are important and where you went to university is relevant information for assessing that.

My firm tried university blind recruitment for a bit alongside a written test. It significantly increased the number of Oxbridge students recruited so they scrapped it again.

You have evidence for this? And by "elitist" I assume you mean "academically able".

Plenty of paid internships are available in the careers dept of most universities. For those whose kids went to other Unis please encourage them to visit their Uni careers depts to see the wide opportunities available.
The internship interviews will be very similar to the grad jobs - blind recruitment is pretty standard.

Why do you think just because your son went to Cambridge - he would be a good fit for the job? I have a friend who’s son graduated form Cambridge with a first - socially he really really struggles and has found to very hard to get a job now. It’s not ALL about the university/grades and that’s how it should be.

OP, if you don’t mind me saying, you are making a fuss about nothing really. The opportunities at C are fantastic - particularly access to paid summer internships. This is how many of them get jobs after uni anyway. They build up an amazing network of people. On the internships, they find they all went to Oxbridge, Imperial, UCL, LSE, Durham or top Ivy League.

@Ace56 it sounds like governance at your university is poor! Don't you have external examiners? Ive worked across a range of universities and also been an external and feel there is a good degree of consistency, in my field in any case.

I work in an ex-poly and have also worked at a more prestigious uni. Trust me, the quality really isn’t the same. How can it be, when my current place accepts students with DDD in their A Levels, compared to Oxbridge with AAA? The students here just can’t cope with academic rigour, so of course the degrees are not equivalent. That’s just something they say to appease little Johnny’s parents when he only gets DDD in his A Levels and so can only get into a shitty uni. Some of the students in my current place can barely string a sentence together.

But a first from Oxbridge is miles ahead than a first from a shitty ex-poly. The standard of work is just so much higher. In fact it’s usually the case that a 2:1 from Oxbridge is equivalent to a First from other non-Russell group unis - that’s how most employers (including my own) see it.

That’s not to say that the Oxbridge person is necessarily the best candidate for the job, but academically let’s not pretend they aren’t miles ahead of their peers!

This is what's wrong with the country!
Recruitment shouldn't be about 'making things much fairer'. It should be about getting the best possible person for the job.

Not saying that isn't someone from a non-Oxbridge university. Just that, if someone's going to be diagnosing my illness or some other highly responsible job, I'd want to think they'd got the best person, not recruited politically to try and make things fairer!

So much ignorance on here about Oxbridge. They've vastly increased their diversity in terms of state/private intake in the last couple of decades.

So you are basically saying that those who have not had the opportunity to go to an elite university but still have the exact same qualification shouldn't be be able to et the same jobs. As someone who got a degree in a standard university please feel free to fuck off.

AND?

Not true. There is a good deal of cross sector work to ensure quality and comparability of curricular and standards in similar degree programmes.

Jobs shouldn't be offered on the basis of awarding university, rather on the merit of the candidate in the application process. Qualifications are only what get you to interview stage.

Your child will have incredible experiences at such a high caliber university that should help him achieve success in the job market. He can then feel sure he's got the job on his own merit, rather than because of where he studied.