To be upset about ‘university blind’ recruitment

Lots of companies do almost everything blind.
ie
you are not allowed to put down
ethnicity
school
university
etc

Its all about inclusion. It helps avoid discrimination.
This is a good thing.

‘Oxbridge are so elitist and do little to further diversity.’

I went to Oxbridge. Both the alumnae magazines I receive ( one from the University, one from the college) have virtually nothing in them but articles about diversity, inclusion and even more striving to ‘foster inclusivity’, along with begging for funds to help this ‘ outreach work’. They are so boring that they go straight in the bin.

I love it. Social justice at work.

Where degree snobs are passed over in favour of hard work. Our society can't move forward until we start seeing people for their personal achievements, not their privilege.

Fri son wants to get into Oxford because it's a stepping stone to Harvard. So I guess the Americans are still interested

No this is not what contextual admissions are.

Contextual admissions are to help the most disadvantaged state school pupils (so those from poorly performing schools, living in poor areas, on free school meals, young carers).
Contextual admissions do not give any advantage to an average state school pupil compared to a private school pupil.

I know what contextual admissions are.... I was giving a very brief, broad stroke answer to a question about taking into account a student's background.
I didn't mean it to sound like they were applicable to anyone attending state school.

0% of students getting a first is surely an indication of a poor course and poor teaching? Not one bright and capable “great” student at your Uni? Statistically that is impossible.

I find your tone very patronising, just because you have a PhD does not negate my lived experience which is ‘actual data’ (you know actual qualitative insights) and not ‘knows someone who knows someone’ as you incorrectly assumed.

All research has its limitations, are you aware of yours.

Yes, I can Google. But I was wondering what it said in the article, which was behind a paywall.

Maybe you could Google yourself some manners.

YANBU

Universities and specific courses at universities are not one and the same - they don't all attract the same calibre of student and they don't all turn out the same calibre of graduate.

It's not all about Oxford and Cambridge. Portsmouth University, for example, is poorly ranked (or used to be) but has an excellent, very well regarded (or used to be) Marine Biology course. A prospective employee who had done that course would probably be a better candidate for a job in that field than one who had been to Durham, York or other non coastal, very prestigious institutions. UAE is a fairly averagely regarded university but has the best Drama and Creative Writing Departments of the non vocational universities (or again, used to). Someone applying for a job in a creative field ought to be able to let their employer know that they went to UAE and their employer should want to know. I'm sure there are countless other examples like those two.

Course and University matter.

I don't know about Cambridge, but DN who was at Oxford under a similar system used to wonder what the hell he was paying for as tutorial time was so minimal. He ended up with a first, but it had very little to do with his tutors.

Your son will work far harder at Cambridge than the average student at bogstandard uni, and be stretched and challenged far more. If he’s an arts student, for example, he will be producing c. 2 essays a week and sitting mock exams at the beginning of every term. My friends at redbrick universities barely produced 2 essays a term and spent most of their degree sleeping and sitting around their flats watching tv and gossiping. He will be grilled on his research and thinking in weekly supervisions/tutorials on his own or with one other student. If your son applies for graduate schemes that assess using rigorous methods eg group discussions about a topic, written assessments and interviews, the excellent education offered to him at Cambridge will stand him in excellent stead for the application process and to progress in his career.

Can I respectfully disagree?! It is the opposite. My university told us: we do not give out firsts, because we need to keep our standards higher than Cambridge and Oxford. When I see people who have studied at Cambridge and Oxford, I actually feel sorry for them that their degrees were not as broad as ours. Having said that, I see them on places like the BBC! So it gives contacts, open doors, is prestigious in its own right. But for those of us "in the know", we know that a 1st from Cambridge does not mean all that much! The statistics recently were shocking, something like 40% of students at Cambridge got a first (and I think automatically get a masters after one year?). As I said, 0% of students at my university (on my course) got a first. What we have is reputation; Cambridge has everything else!

Can you manage google for yourself?

In Scotland there are no selective state schools; they are all Comprehensive.
DS1 went from Comp to Cambridge/. DS 4 applied to Cambridge and was offered a place; but chose Edinburgh instead .

From a financial POV, Cambridge was cheaper because the vast wealth of the university's endowments benefits undergrads in subsidised college accommodation, educational facilities etc, bursaries etc.

I'm in a sector which recruits straight from university so "candidate's experience" is largely irrelevant. We now have "blind recruitment". The particular degree was only offered by 5 universities in Scotland when I did it. There's now goodness knows how many. There's no way all degrees are equal.

This is the exemption rather than the rule. Most companies will still want to know where you studied. Regardless the purpose of a good education is so you have a good education, which hopefully pays dividends.

Looks like you weren’t taught that there are rigorous standards that all universities must meet when issuing grades. They’re externally marked to make sure they are on par. A first is a first is a first, if you’re specifically talking grading.

No this is not what contextual admissions are.

Contextual admissions are to help the most disadvantaged state school pupils (so those from poorly performing schools, living in poor areas, on free school meals, young carers).

Contextual admissions do not give any advantage to an average state school pupil compared to a private school pupil.

That really is not necessarily the case at all. In many subjects the curriculum at Oxbridge is essentially the same as it is in most other universities.

What a spiteful comment.

MMU is fab — depending on the subject. I’m currently studying for my MFA there and it’s one of the best in my subject.

Many colleges offer generous financial support, especially the wealthiest ones, but pp are talking about people who need to live at home, possibly studying part-time or fitting their studies around caring responsibilities.

Grammar schools have an Oxbridge track and put a lot of effort into getting pupils into the top universities. Comps and High schools just don't do this as they have different priorities.
Grammar schools are selective and not available to everyone.

The blind recruitment is a fad. Go woke go broke. Credit Suisse gorged itself at the diversity table, over promoted mediocre people on the basis of sex/ colour and look where it has ended up.

I suspect if your son had worked super hard and “only” got a degree from a low ranking uni you’d be complaining about how unfair it is that it’s looked down upon by some. I think you just want it all in your favour and bollocks to everyone else who also works their socks off but doesn’t have the ability or circumstance to be a high flyer.

Yes, I second this. The OP is being reasonable. Not only do you have experience of two types of uni, but so do I.

I have 2 BSc Hons, one from a RG - low pass, and one from The OU - 1st class.

The Open University was seriously easy, and no way equal to a degree from a RG.