To be upset about ‘university blind’ recruitment

THIS THREAD WAS STARTED OVER A YEAR AGO

We had a number of mature people on our grad scheme, and no employer worth working for would shut out talent whilst breaking the law. Can't imagine the careers service would have said what the lecturers did.

That said, grad salaries are generally lower than those of experienced hires, as your DH found out. However, not everyone has the skills and experience to walk into an experienced hire job and some mature grads choose to go for the grad scheme with lower pay in the early days as an investment for what comes after that.

what the hell is the point of going to a top Uni if no one will know about it
😂Said never an educated person.

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. Good, with that attitude, she doesn't belong in a 'top uni'.

His lecturers told him not to bother applying as no graduate scheme would accept him. He finished university having got himself a non graduate scheme job and that paid £10,000 more per annum than the graduate scheme jobs as a starting salary.

He was too old to get a graduate job when he graduated with his second degree at 35. Seven years later he is a member CIOB w

When you say 'too old to get a graduate job' - was that how he felt? Or was he excluded from grad schemes based on his age? The latter is illegal

My profession needs academically bright people, no question. However, there is so much more to it - commercial awareness, people skills, ability to condense complex information into snappy concise advice, buckets of common sense, resilience, organisation and time-management.

I used to work with a guy who was lovely, straight A everything, Oxbridge. He knew more about the subject matter than I knew or will ever know. However, he was completely incapable of doing the job; he couldn’t write practical, concise advice to save his life. We guided him but he just couldn’t do it. He eventually left the profession and went into academia, where he would be a perfect fit.

I should balance this by saying we have a lot of Oxbridge grads who are brilliant. However, we also have a lot of grads from other universities that are far less prestigious who do the job equally well.

It stops bias. I’d say at least 50% of the time when I’ve interviewed people for role the “best” on paper are not the right people. I once interviewed someone who came top 3 globally in a professional exam…zero people skills, couldn’t answer a lot of the questions.

My husband got a degree with honours from his chosen university. It is not an RG university but the university in our home city is second in the whole of the uk after another non RG university in construction. He was too old to get a graduate job when he graduated with his second degree at 35. Seven years later he is a member CIOB with a degree in building surveying (MRICS is not required for his job). My dad did attend (in the 70s)what is now an RG university but it wasn’t his degree that got him the job. The degree got his foot in the door but his extra curricular got him the job. Two of his friends also got a job in finance with him despite one having a degree in the classics and one in English literature. Extra curricular counted far more.

Whether recruitment is blind or not, they have to have minimum academic requirements. That is how they cut down the pile. My DH didn’t have the grades required for top accountancy graduate recruitment. He worked at a tiny local firm whilst he qualified and then moved to Deloitte. It is not the end of the world to not get the graduate job straight away.

They're not written off though are they. It's blind recruitment. They're judged on their application.

I would also like to step on your toes to say I’ve recently had my results of a 2:1, which I completed while having 2 babies, working FT, with no family help and a serious/chronic physical disability. No it wasn’t from Oxbridge/Russell Group but boy oh boy it was a slog and if employers are recruiting going by your grade, experience and enthusiasm then I’m very happy with that. There are all sorts of reasons people can’t attend a top university without intelligence coming into it.

I feel like your DS’s prestigious place means you’ve now rocketed off to the same area as the parents you’re criticising. On one hand you disagree with university blind job offers, on the other hand you say his place means so much more because he was inherently disadvantaged? Surely the former is just a tool of the latter?

True. Many top Masters / PHD/ grad schemes will waive a 1st Class Hons requirement for Open Uni grads for this reason (for most of their non-stem degrees 85% is a 1st).

Yes, it’s the initials screening that is the problem with blind recruiting

I work in one of the professions
and occasionally get involved in recruiting graduates. We have minimum academic criteria, and applications are filtered for that before they reach me, so I don’t even look at their marks when shortlisting. All I’m bothered about is a demonstrable interest in the work, experience to date, and, ultimately, how well they interview. The academics are a given.

The problem I’m seeing with ‘blind’ university cvs is that many disadvantaged students receive their university places with contextual offers. If the university name is omitted and companies rely only on A level grades to differentiate most academic achievement within the very broad university categories, (eg 2:1), then thesr candidates miss out the most as only A level grades on cvs are giving a clue as to their academic ability. I think if most of us are honest with ourselves, we would accept that not all 2:1s or 1st are equal. That’s largely why there is competition for places. Also, there appears to be some evidence that the move is counter productive. Companies are no longer aiming to fill ‘quotas’ formal or not. The presumed positive outcome is not as straight forward as it first appears. Agreed, academic ability definitely doesn’t always mean best candidate, but think it is only fair that success in this field be should be shown as clearly as possible just like other skills. Companies with the best intent need to be careful not to jump onto the bandwagon.

It's a great idea to avoid 'nepotistic' hiring of candidates. My manager hired an Oxbridge candidate for this reason and the employee was utterly woeful and was managed out after 6 months. Graduating from Oxbridge is no guarantee of being a great employee.

Most Oxbridge candidates already have an advantage in life by being born intelligent, having supportive parents and the right conditions to succeed. I wouldn't worry about your child. Sounds like your DS has all of these.

I think it's very good gor biology

St Andrews' main attraction as a place of education for the heir to the throne is that it is geographically well-suited to be reasonably secure and well-guarded. In the same way that it was a lot easier to ensure security at Eton than it would be at a typical inner-city comprehensive secondary, it would have been a lot easier for the security detail to cover the prince safely in St Andrews than it would have been at a big redbrick university somewhere like Manchester

One of my siblings went to St Andrew's at the same time as William.

If I recall, he did a geography degree which is well known there as a duffer's degree when it involves the nobility.

St Andrews is very good for subjects like Ancient History, History, Archaelogy etc.. Not so good for science-based subjects.

Do you think a WC child with Prince William's school results would have got the place at St Andrew's that he did? Not in a million years, even if they could have afforded it somehow.

St Andrews is nothing special, it's just beloved by the private school crowd because the town is pretty. Just checked my subject (biochemistry) and both Glasgow and Edinburgh require much better Higher results, St Andrews has the same entry requirements as Aberdeen and Dundee.

While we are dealing with facts, Harvard considers applications without reference to family income. When an undergraduate applicant from anywhere in the world with a family income of less than USD 100,000 is admitted, the family does not pay a cent and no loan is offered. Harvard pays all fees. (A decent campus job for a few hours employment per week during term time may be required, but student employment is normal in America.)

A few other leading private American universities run similar programmes.

I think it's the right thing to do, it can open doors for students who haven't come from a background that enables going to such universities, and previously might not have been given a chance.

It will level the playing field and tbh some of my best staff don't even have degrees but years of experience has taken them to the top.

What background the students come from and how much help they have had to get the top grades is irrelevant. Once there they will pushed more and expected to study to a deeper level. All university degrees are different, there is no outside adjudicator.

$90 k a year to go to an Ivy League

Scholarships

University, Oxbridge - £10k fees,

same at all 3 Rd level institutions in UK

plus accommodation in 2 of the most expensive towns,

Oxford offer accommodation to all first years in college halls heavily subsidised with meals also heavily subsidised plus onsite cafes ( also heavily subsidised). it’s possible to live for less there then at other universities. Plus wealthy colleges like St Johns can offer additional funds once in

and they'll tell you the courses are ' too rigorous' to do anything other than study ( ie hold down a job too),

all good institutions tell you this and all students ignore it

and then throw in the cost of living,

everywhere

and the extras,

what extras?

and that's not taking into account the tutors

?

and money on extra curriculars to have a 'rounded' CV to get into Oxbridge at all.

An idea sold by private providers and bought by those trying to give extra advantage to their children. Has no bearing whatsoever on admissions tutors ( do you really think a physicist would care about sporting achievements/duke of Edinburgh/violin grades when interviewing an 18 yr old?

Oh, and the high ( by percentage) number of privately educated students getting in,

disproportionate yes, absolutely but not a majority

who's parents ave quite literally spent 10s of 1000's of pounds, and more, already.

Their money

So yes, it's statistically okay to think that rich kids goes to these Universities, because rich kids do.

Do you think a WC child with Prince William's school results would have got the place at St Andrew's that he did?

With new contextual offers it’s possible but I don’t know PW’s grade but he is an anomaly

Not in a million years, even if they could have afforded it somehow.

I did. I wasn’t alone. I was there for a postgrad not an undergrad and it was the PGCE. I met several people there from Northern w/c backgrounds who had completed degrees there. This was a long time ago. Since then, a lot has changed.

Its really important when talking about places like this that we deal with facts because there is so much myth about these places but they are publicly funded ( with also private contributions) so have to be open to all ( based on grades and ability) and are our internationally recognised universities - we should be behind them. They are not the places they are being depicted as - full of Tory like /aristo/Eton types/ Bullingdon club - that is a myth ( that certain people liked to perpetuate back in the 80s or the earlier Brideshead revisited effete intellectual types. They are typically full of the quite serious, nerdy, studious types who work - they really do study hard ( like most serious students wherever they are).

I only replied to your comment because I think it’s really important that if a parent on here from a low income/disadvantaged background has a child with the ability they look for at these universities then it is important they know that there are ways around the costs, and that there is space there for them. They have a right to it and not to take it up is exactly how these institutions do become dominated by the idea of a type that some employers then look for - but it is much, much more than that.