To be upset about ‘university blind’ recruitment

Surely if you do PhD you can enter the company at a higher level?

Not necessarily and that often comes as a big shock to PhD graduates, who just assumed rather than checking it out before embarking on a PhD.

It depends whether the additional skills, knowledge and experiences gained through the PhD add more value to the organisation than a regular graduate, and that will vary by individual, hiring organisation and role.

Surely if you do PhD you can enter the company at a higher level?

IME companies get around it by stating 'only if you have graduated in the last 5 years'. I've also had companies email me after the interview with an 'equal opportunities' form from HR asking me about date of birth etc on the pretence 'of ensuring we are recruiting fairly' with no option to state that you'd rather not give that info. Trust me, they still find loopholes to discriminate.

Then the question is why would 40 year older want graduate jobs, not would we want 40 year olds.
I'm 41,two haha left on an OU degree. I have no experiment in my study field because it's different to what I did when I was 18. So I can't get experience roles. So I should do what?

I’m just finishing my MFA at 41 and I’m about to embark on a PhD after. Presumably I should just stagnate in the corner and let 21 year olds crack on with it, should I?

Yes you are.

@eggsbenedict23 what are you talking about?

You know that "the University of life" is not a real thing, right?

Why would someone apply for "experienced hire roles" if they had no experience?

I just assumed they'd go for experienced hire roles

Not if they are new graduates and don't have relevant experience for the particular roles they are applying for. It's unusual of course but not unheard of. But your Like do we want 40 year olds applying for graduate schemes came over more discriminatory than just 'assuming they'd go for experienced hire roles' i hope to goodness you aren't in recruitment or management.

I just assumed they'd go for experienced hire roles

Like do we want 40 year olds applying for graduate schemes
Why wouldn't we?? - mature individuals with way more life experience to bring to the workplace on graduate salaries - win-win for employers

I meant 40 year olds but no reason a 49 year old couldn’t apply either!

What’s wrong with 49 year old graduates applying to grad schemes? They’ll have another 25 plus years working so plenty of time to have a good career. They may have life and work experience which makes them great candidates for the schemes.

Not everyone goes to university aged 18. Graduate schemes used to have upper age limits but this counts as age discrimination.

I don’t see why not,@eggsbenedict23 Their maturity is often a useful asset to the workplace.

Can someone help here: is it even legal to discriminate on the basis of age?

Is there any reason why you say this?

After all, you're suggesting that it is undesirable for any woman who has, after 20 years of a controlling or financially abusive marriage, caring for children, coping with ill health or disability, working in a low paid role, finally been able to study (whether full time or through somewhere like the Open University) to be treated on the same basis as anybody else who has gained the equivalent qualifications.

Would you really prefer them to stay in their lane and stick to the job on Reception/tills/cleaning rather than use their intellect and dedication to get the job that reflects their true ability?

If they're graduates, why don't you?

Race and sex blind I agree with. But like age blind for graduate roles? Like do we want 40 year olds applying for graduate schemes?

👏

Ok- so this thread has got far too long to read the full thread- sorry. However, mumsnet's obsession with Russell Group Uni is totally out of proportion to real life. And I have attended 2 (I have since learnt) because I am fortunate to be old enough when that was possible due to not having to consider the costs (£3000 fees brought in when I went the second time) and this bollox did not seem to exist. I liked the course, I liked the Uni and the cities they were in. Parents were vaguely proud (dad was a Durham and Oxford alumni) but was just left to get in with it.

And then went to Uni a third time (I know) - not an ex poly, but somewhere far down the list of prestigious universities but very highly regarded for my course- which has now been my career for many years. It was also highly regarded such as pharmacy, dentistry etc. and has been world leaders in a particularly niche area for decades. It is an area with many home students for complex reasons but was exceptional and my best experience by far.

As an undergraduate, many Russel group ratings are pointless unless your future is academia, politics or a way into a few select careers which are more about who you know rather than what you know (which also covers politics really). There is huge snobbery around red brick universities and ex polytechnics but in many areas they are considered far superior in providing courses that prepare their students for the industry they want to work in. This is because they always have provided these courses and have the right lecurers, work placements and connections.

I think a lot of people, in various professions, will know some buffoon not fit for the job but has somehow worked their way in due to out-dated concepts. Going to a certain university does not mean they are 'top drawer', many have learnt unshakable confidence through their schooling/uni which means in interview they over deliver or in some industries they just know the right people. Absolutely the recruitment process should be 'university blind', alongside age, race, sex etc. There has been so much research for so long into the bias shown in job selection it is crazy that this is still something people object to. There is no reason someone who has been to elite university would not get a job if they meet the criteria and the most suitable person for the job. Expecting to be favoured a job because you went to a certain university.....

No, accuracy.

He's not even started yet. Don't put so much pressure on him to make it all the way through. Getting in is an achievement but different students require different experiences.

Your daughter is being needlessly dismissive of Man Met. In some courses it has the best in the country. Most Universities will have something in their portfolio that is either the best or up there, even ones you might look down on.

Well done to your son, I am sure if he succeeds there he will be fine the other side!

What university someone went to is heavily dependent on their life between 16 and 18. So much can happen at this age to mean that someone doesn’t get the GCSEs and A levels which represent their full academic potential. A lot of it often not really to do with the person themselves but eg unstable or abusive home, caring for family, housing problems etc etc. Or something major happening - illness, mental health crisis, pregnancy. I find it really weird that when someone manages to get through these circumstances, get to university on a lower tariff, and then excel at degree level - that this is somehow seen as an ‘easier’ route.

Of course some people get in on the same lower tariff and had genuinely reached their potential earlier in their education, and continue to perform at an average level.

The reason that new universities have lower entry criteria (and the OU has none) is because it’s not possible tell which potential students are which- but these courses give a chance to the first group to reach their potential. This first group also often have a huge amount to offer employers - and are often overlooked because of the kind of snobbery shown on this thread by a lot of people.

This. Just being there is an amazing experience, no matter what happens afterwards.

Yea, some people don't like it but the majority do. It's a wonderful experience. I still count it as one of the happiest times of my life and I left nearly 25 years ago.

Wait people hire arts grads into numerical roles?

I agree with you. Managers Using Oxbridge 1sts as an umbrella to trick companies into taking underqualified arts grads into STEM (particularly data) grad schemes roles is one of the reasons why we have a skills shortage in the UK.