To be upset about ‘university blind’ recruitment

Which companies are doing this?

I work in finance and see no evidence of it or have heard anything about it, and I have an eye on lots of recruitment so tend to hear about trends.

Past the first job, lots of recruiting is done via recommendation and network so I wouldn't worry too much.

Lots of graduate scheme recruitment for big companies or civil service involves doing tests or assessments so if he is really bright, he will do well at those and get the job.

If someone from Wolverhampton does better than him at the test then they deserve to get the job.

This- 2 of mine got in on competency one hasn’t even graduated
The benefit of the school and particular university is the time spent there and friends made rather than some magic key afterwards.

And actually Manchester Met is quite a good university with a triple accredited business school too. Anyone who goes there and doesn't work will fail, just like they would if they went to Oxbridge.

All this university prestige is a complete fallacy at undergraduate level anyway. Universities get their reputation from research, not their undergraduate degrees. For example, being in the Russell Group is all about being a sufficiently large university with the right research facilities (which is why excellent universities like Bath and Lancaster don't feature) which is pretty meaningless if you go and study a qualifying law degree or a BPS accredited Psychology degree that has to teach much the same content as every other university. Going to a Russell Group university for me meant being taught by people more interested in their research rather than their students.

I remember working on my graduate scheme with someone who was desperate to tell everyone he "went to St. Andrews, the best university in Scotland." I'm not sure what he was trying to prove other than that he was a bit of a knob. And he failed his early hurdle exams and was forced out 😂

As a recruiter by the way, if I'm not operating institution blind, I am always drawn to OU candidates as to be able to do a degree in that way demonstrates fantastic skills in time management, resource, drive and initiative. All hugely useful skills to take into the workplace.

Repeatedly, throughout this thread, yes.

I have to disagree. The OU was not just more challenging for me, it was also much more rewarding. At my bricks and mortar university my lecturers never really knew me, the contact time was "barely any" and the questions were facile. I once handed in an essay I had written as practice during my A-Levels and got a higher mark in my last year at university!

At the OU, my tutors made an effort to get to know me, talked through the materials, the books and lectures were much more rewarding and to be honest they repaired what was a pretty jaded opinion of higher education.

So it's quite a fallacy, outside any wider diversity of access issues, that Oxbridge contains all the 'best' academic brains even, let alone all the best future workforce.

Has anyone made that claim?

My younger child says she will apply to Manchester Met and have a ball even though she too is predicted stellar grades as there is no point going to a top Uni

What a ridiculous comment. Is it the Uni equivalent of 'There's no point in working when others get so many benefits, I might as well not work'? I mean, ok, go on then. I'm currently recruiting for a new IT company. I'm not particularly interested in which Uni the applicants went to, I would be very much interested, and not in a good way, in an attitude like that though.

There are of course (and some Mumsnetters might be fainting as they read) plenty of very academically strong young people who don't even want to go to Oxbridge. Maybe the course isn't what they want, or they want to go to a big city, or they dislike the teaching methods. Not to mention the very strong candidates who just don't get in every year because there has to be a cut off somewhere. So it's quite a fallacy, outside any wider diversity of access issues, that Oxbridge contains all the 'best' academic brains even, let alone all the best future workforce.

Not all Unis are the same. Of course not.

But people are interviewed for jobs ( not unis)

People do jobs ( not unis )

Interviewers employ people ( not unis)

Your son should get a great education at Cambridge and all kudos to him. That great education and achievement should help him stand out at any blind interview scenario.

Yes you're BU if you think there's some sort of pause button after 'university entrance' which means everything else should just follow.

TBH I think it depends on whether you are working in the concept areas and continuing to exercise your brain in learning as to whether you would find a second degree easier than a first.

For example, during my first degree there were some concepts that seemed to be very hard, so I just didn't bother with them, only to find during my PhD they were very useful and I used them a lot. The problem wasn't that they were too hard. The problem was I gave up trying to understand them too easily.

As you get older you learn more and more concepts and over time see concepts re-used in different areas again and again. I'm pretty confident now if I went back to do my first degree I would ace much of the stuff I then found difficult, but that is only because I have continued to develop my skills in the same area I took my degree in. If i went into another type of area to work I am not sure it would be the case at all.

Whether I could sit myself down on an arse numbing seat for 5 hours of lectures in a row again, that's a different question...

I'm a barrister. We recruit university blind and have done so for many years. Even before that, we gave applicants the same marks for a first regardless of where it came from (although we could see the university). We still have a disproportionate number of Oxbridge graduates amongst our recruits. I've long suspected it's because the tutorial system at Oxbridge develops the skills we tend to be looking for at interview. There are all sorts of ways in which an Oxbridge degree benefits graduates, and as a comprehensive school educated Oxbridge graduate myself I think university blind recruiting is absolutely the way forward. You should be concentrating on whether the applicant has shown they're suited to the job overall, not where their degree comes from.

Well, they don't know who will apply. They may be willing to take someone from another uni who shines at interview, as they should be. Though they might have two very similar candidates and be looking for the thing that separates them. That thing could be the level of the degree. It is a fact that not all degrees are equal.

I don't think it really matters, in the sense that the contacts built up and opportunities for placements, etc, will be vastly superior for op's son. I do think that a first from some universities means more than others.

Outside of mumsnet no-one ever talks about 'RG' universities. I've worked at prestigious investment firms and no-one cares.

It's like all these snobby clothing companies that get mentioned. No-one in reality cares either.

Yes because reading and chatting about a teen romance is totally comparable to a science based on mathematics
I'm going to assume you're being funny as it's kinda obvious that a topic in any discipline can be studied at different levels and depths.

What's the point of working hard in Oxbridge, getting through an academically rigourous Oxbridge degree if it doesn't help in the job market?
Some might argue that if someone gets an Oxbridge degree and is unable to demonstrate that they are academically able with a range of relevant skills without relying on a recruiter being impressed at the university name, they probably aren't as exceptional as they think they are.

YABU

what the hell is the point of going to a top Uni if no one will know about it! well, what the hell is the point of going to a 'top' Uni if it doesn't mean an education that will ensure you stand out from other candidates?

A 'top uni' shouldn't be just a brand. Performing well in A-Levels and having a support system that encourages someone to apply to Oxbridge isn't itself a guarantee that you'll be good at your career.

Being good at exams doesn't in itself mean you'll be a good employee.

You must be really proud of him. I agree with you OP, if I went to Oxford or Cambridge, I'd bloody well want it bold and clear on my application form - it's a huge achievement!

Having said that, Oxford and a Cambridge students tend to stand out anyway.....so I doubt that blind recruitment will do him a disservice, particularly since it's not very blind anyway (they will know exactly which university he went to once he gets further along in the recruitment process!).

Oxbridge don't care about hobbies. They care about the predicted grades, personal statement, reference and most importantly the performance at interview (which is all academic)

If it is any help @Newname576 my understanding is that those from Oxbridge and more prestigious unis still tend to perform better (with the odd exception) in the aptitude testing and thus move further through recruiting processes.

And yes there is definitely a difference between unis and their graces. However there will be some that get their first at a less prestigious place who may well achieve a first at more prestigious places but are there out of circumstance. It is those able students that the blind recruitment generally helps.

Grumpafrump, so using that logic, what's the point of building connections 'that cross social class boundaries'?

@Wenfy

How absolutely dare you even suggest I 'partied' as a teenager through uni. What stereotyping!

I was a homeless teenager who lived in a YMCA while doing my A-level's, and didn't drink alcohol in my first year of uni as it reminded me of my alcoholic mother. I assure you I had motivation but not the academic ability to do well, and that is the reason I got a 3rd class degree - the science degree at the University of Bristol was just too hard for me.

The reason I got a 1st from the Open University was because it was easy for me - I didn't work any harder, at all. I am flabbergasted that anyone would suggest they're of equal standard - what I studied wasn't. The material in my Open University degree was inferior to the material in my University of Bristol degree.

You mentioned "many challenges", I'm assuming your son didn't go to a fancy school and have tutors and expensive hobbies. So his admission to Cambridge was "school blind" and was only based on his hard work and abilities, correct?
Yet you are angry that some companies are now offering the same courtesy to university graduates!

Ok fair enough. Thanks

the skills you gt from it will help you - not just the institution name on a CV.

Oh, and I have a 2.1 Bachelor from an ex poly, and a distinction (in fact best in the class) for an LLM at a Russel Group uni. I didn't get smarter, and I doubt anything got easier (especially as it was more advanced). What did change was (1) my approach to uni and (2) I actually think at "better" unis you get far more support, enabling you to do much better than you might have done in one with less.

I don't think it's as easy as crap uni - easy degrees, good unis - hard degrees. In fact, it's probably easier to get a good mark at a good uni with lots of support and excellent facilities than one without.