To be upset about ‘university blind’ recruitment

@Digitallis At that time, already 1/3 of companies were already hiring based on degree grade only.

Just because your son is going to Oxbridge doesn't make him a better candidate for a role than someone who went elsewhere and quite frankly I'm glad that recruiters are using this option to level the playing field to find outstanding candidates who haven't gone to a select few elitist establishments.

Good. Might stop the jobs for mates, mummy’s friend etc. sounds 100% fair and inclusive.

Never mind OP as long as he sucks up to the right people whilst he's there and joins the right groups his Cambridge chums will always be there in British society to prop open doors for him and give him a leg up.

Spot on

The contradictions in your post are funny. If everyone knows an Oxbridge degree is worth more than why would your friend with a 2:1 be considered better than someone with a 2:2?

The blind recruitment DID work as those who interviewed best for the job got it. In this case it seems it was top tier Uni’s although Japan is hardly a use case for diversity in any shape or form.

@BetterFuture1985

This is funny - how many of us have 1sts from the OU? lol
I'm arguying that OU was way easier than my Russel Group degree though........

You sound awful. Clearly don’t have much confidence your child will do well enough on their own, you were banking on Cambridge opening the doors instead? You should be pleased that ‘blind’ applications make it fairer for people from all backgrounds, but now that your son has a ‘privilege’ you want to use that. How ironic.
ps getting accepted into Cambridge and actually graduating from Cambridge are too very different things. I wouldn’t count your chickens before they hatch - or you might have to face up to your unpleasant thoughts about ‘lesser’ universities sooner rather than later

I agree 100% with regard to name blind recruitment - DS also has an ethnic minority name. But posters on this thread saying that a 2.1 from bottom of table uni X is the same as a 2.1 from Cambridge is complete nonsense!

But blind recruitment isn't a pick and mix where you choose the components that most benefit you. It levels the playing field for everyone in the same way.

As does targeted recruitment. My son wants to go into management consultancy and the only available holiday programs this year (and last year) were open only to woman and black people. Slightly bizarrely, they encouraged him (he's neither) to apply but he felt it would be inappropriate.

My son is white and from a private school. I accept, for some things such as recruitment, that may stack the odds against him and I'm aware he's had the benefit of other advantages. The Oxbridge and Durham offer rate was at its lower level by far at our school last year (and the majority of our pupils are from ethnic minorities).

It's also not the done thing to slate other universities. You mention Durham as one of the unis where the degrees are well-respected but my son hasn't had to work particularly hard this year. He's just had three online 24/48 hour exams this term and is now enjoying the social side. So a student from your so-called 'Lesser Uni of X' may well be able to demonstrate higher academic achievement than my son's degree from Durham.

@Newname576

It's ridiculous what some people are saying.
I have a Third Class Science degree from the University of Bristol.
I have a First Class Science degree from the Open University.

I didn't suddenly become smarter between the two degrees. One was too difficult for me, the other really easy. Depending on the University, the level of difficulty varies widely.

People want to believe a "a first is a first", but I have a first, and from my experience my first is worth the same as a third from the UoB.

I knew a woman with a 2:2 in languages, she had to translate both directions, from Italian to English and vice versa. Her friend, studying the same languages at a different (ex-poly) uni, only had to translate FROM Italian into English, and got a 2:1.

Because a 2:1 is higher than a 2:2, when both completed law conversion degree's, the girl with the 2:1 in an effectively easier degree got recruited far easier.

While it's true that traditional unis aren't the top for everything (both MMU and University of West England have some brilliant tailered to work degree's, and for creative writing University of East Anglia is the place to go), I do agree that your son is being wrong footed.

What I can say that will cheer you up though is that, apparently (according to my husband) here in Japan some companies tried this blind recruitment thing already, and it failed. People from the top-tier universities interviewed better, showed a wider range of skills and secured the better jobs. So they scrapped it. x

It’s the connections that he will make where he will learn about top jobs not yet advertised and such that will help. I wouldn’t worry too much.

• typo If someone is an exceptional candidate, has a high level of academic ability, and a wide range of relevant soft skills why would they be concerned about the recruitment panel NOT seeing 'Oxford/Cambridge' on the form?

Blind recruiting will help any Oxbridge candidate as they won't be getting the role because of privilege, they will be there with talent
Agree with this.

If someone is an exceptional candidate, has a high level of academic ability, and a wide range of relevant soft skills why would they be concerned about the recruitment panel seeing 'Oxford/Cambridge' on the form?

The idea that strong, rounded candidates from Oxbridge are going to lose out to a graduate from low ranking, educationally poor BloggsTown University who is academically weak with low soft skills, and no experience is highly, highly unlikely. They might find that university blind applications mean they aren't automatically and unfairly elevated above other academically strong, rounded candidates from other good universities based on the university name doing some heavy lifting without the evidence though, but is that a bad thing?

Blind recruiting will help any Oxbridge candidate as they won't be getting the role because of privilege, they will be there with talent

In my experience, there is a much higher proportionate of exceptional graduates from Oxford or Cambridge than other universities, and some universities produce a steady flow of average or poor graduates.

If recruiters are going to remove universities from their application forms, they are going to have to work much harder during the recruitment process to find those exceptional candidates. It seems to me they are intentionally removing a useful shortcut, and they will likely end up with the same graduates anyway if they are successful at finding the exceptional characters.

LOL.

Next time I'll flounce off to a place where that I think is more in tune with my confirmation bias. I'm hoping that the HE forum won't tell you any different, but if it is full of pearl clutching helicopter mummies then maybe it will.

You've already decided you are right. What is the point of asking for opinions?

I've worked in Higher Education, I've worked in the private sector for a FTSE 100 company and I've worked in the public sector and I've been involved in recruiting in all of them. It is in the best interests of any organisation to consider candidates on their individual merits and not allow brand names to sway decisions - you get the best person for the job. As I said previously if your DS is good then he will be a strong candidate, but if you arrogantly assumes that the name of the university he has attended will be all he needs to get a job he will be in for a shock. He has worked hard for an opportunity to have choice in his career, Cambridge is just the beginning, not the top of the mountain.

There is a more than just the uni name - eg in Cambridge he will get great connections that will stand him in good stead - who you know can be important as what you know.

The amount of money you are spending i would not be happy if my dd wanted.to go for a piss up - she could get a job and pay for that herself!

@Newname576 So you agree that there is unfair recruitment based on factors that have no bearing on the candidates ability to do the best job but you think that the unfair bias towards oxbridge applicants before inviting to interview is ok. So some biased recruitment is ok and others isn't?

Blind recruitment does not get you the job. It gets you in the door. Until blind recruitment what happened was some of the best candidates were not even being seen.

There are as you well know, a gazillion reasons why some brilliant students would not be at oxbridge that has nothing to do with their ability. You want to keep them down to make sure your ds has an advantage. This is no different from middle class white families wanting to keep their advantage. It's all wrong.
If your ds is brilliant and the best candidate it will shine through at interview

No one has said OP is privileged, people are describing the privilege of getting in the system.

Your posts smack of someone now in the door and wanting to shut it very tightly behind you.

but...."If you have completed a BA or BFA you will be eligible to take the Oxford MA in or after the 21st term since you matriculated (seven years after matriculation)."

So, if you go to Oxford you already have a higher degree on paper.

Right, @Newname576 , I see your concern, which wasn’t remotely apparent from your OP which I responded to!

@TheOriginalEmu’s post sums it up for me. Blind recruitment is designed to do several things. It’s trying to level the playing field for those entering the job market after decisions made at 18. Don’t forget that for every brilliant young person who makes it into Oxbridge there are also the ones who don’t, but could have done. Some of them will go to other big name universities and others not, depending on their circumstances. Three years at Oxbridge doesn’t erase their potential. It’s still there, waiting to be seen.

But also academic brilliance may not even be relevant for many jobs. If your son has career aspirations for a certain field, and it’s something that’s right for him, then his strengths in that will be what matter, not what degree class he got at all.

Blind recruitment is trying to drive diversity. Your son has already smashed one barrier. He has succeeded on his own strengths. He will do that again for the right job. Plenty of employers still have totally open recruitment where your son’s achievement will be immediately apparent. Those that don’t, who are running big schemes, have thorough and multi-stage processes. The first hurdle is an application form, to get through the door, but after that, candidates succeed on what they bring into exercises, tests, group work and interviews, to show that they can succeed in the field, whatever university they went to. No one can take human bias out of any process but unless your son is applying for jobs that are totally wrong for him, he will bring the same qualities that have seen him succeed so far to the next stage in his life.

Personally I was fed up with working with graduates who thought they knew it all because they had a degree from X university. A lot of them had no common sense, couldn't see beyond the fact that they had that degree and didn't want to learn any more. And they were very snobby about it. Any degree is just the building block upon which you build a career. Learning for life is also important,having a mind that is enquiring,open to new ideas, able to take on challenges. It should show that the recipient of that degree is capable of all those things.
My oldest could have gone to Oxford but chose another University( a very good one) because he felt it suited him better. He knew University was just the start of it, not the be all and end all.

Kindly yabu.

That was a reply to @TheOriginalEmu great name btw.

Yeah your absolutely right i was just talking about the OP situation as its similar to my own. I'm not trying to take away from the examples you have raised they are all very valid.