To be upset about ‘university blind’ recruitment

It is you that doesn't understand what 'unconditional' is. When you apply to UCAS you get 2 types of offers

1. Conditional i.e offer Pending your results 2)Unconditional i.e there are no further requirements to meet or you have already met all the conditions. (this is what you have misinterpreted!) not that there weren't any conditions to begin with. 'Unconditionals' were traditionally for those applying with grades in hand because there is nothing else required of them so when UCAS updates it says 'Your offer is Unconditional'. It's only when the quota on universities was lifted and they all went mad with over-recruiting that we started to see tirade of 'Unconditionals' being given to students who were yet to sit their final exams based on the candidates, 'potential'.

Cambridge is one of the top universities in the world. We might like to pretend Hertfordshire has pockets of excellence but it's like comparing Cheltenham Town and Liverpool FC.

How true is this? I thought Oxbridge offer generous bursaries?

Grammar schools have a much lower % of pupil premium children than the average state school (as one example metric) because it is often MC families who have tutored children to pass the 11+, so again not fully representative of the demographic at a state school nor the intention behind grammar schools. Some parents I know privately educated at primary and tutored for a grammar school nearby so they didn’t have to pay for secondary school fees.

Lots of places do still care. Heard this week of a company that did blind recruitment last year and has reverted this year as some of current grads very weak and can’t pass the exams required.

DS has overcome so many challenges and has an unconditional offer from Cambridge after achieving 4 A star last year.

Congratulations to your son but that’s not an unconditional offer.

I've taught at multiple universities. The academic ability of students who get 2:1s at Oxbridge and those who get 2:1s at your average former polytechnic is completely different. If you're going to ignore what university granted the degree you might as well leave off the degree classification altogether. This isn't like A Levels where everybody sits (more-or-less) the same exams and is graded in the same way.

Of course academic ability doesn't necessarily say that much about how good an employee you're going to be. Good recruitment processes will be aware of that. But good recruitment processes don't just ignore relevant information because of fears about bias; they take steps to mitigate that bias. And with when recruiting new graduates university attainment is often particularly important, as there isn't much or any prior work experience information to go on.

More standardisation of university grading would be no bad thing, but we aren't anywhere close to that at the moment.

You’ve obviously done a ton of research and yes one barrier is getting people to apply but that’s not the only barrier and many of those other ones are institutional.

I never said it was the only barrier, just that it is one of the main barriers.
And yes, I have done a significant amount of research..... 6 years on my doctorate and 20 years in total working and researching this particular subject.

Family member lives in a deprived postcode in the North. Straights As at GCSE and A Level and did 4 full A Levels which didn’t include general studies. Sportsman, DofE and generally a well-rounded individual (I interview a lot of people and know the difference). Didn’t even get an interview. Has gone on to get a masters elsewhere. I have a friend whose daughter is the same - no interview. So people from those backgrounds ARE applying and I have anecdata of maybe 7 with the same story. Imagine how hard it’s been to go to a really average comp and get straight As, yet apparently the criteria is adjusted to accommodate.

Well, of course everyone knows someone who etc, etc yet the actual data tells a more accurate story.
Of course there are people from disadvantaged backgrounds who apply to elite universities and get rejected despite impressive grades and extra curricula activities. There are definitely institutional factors at play.

However, there are significantly more of these types of students who don't even apply to them in the first place.

Many people can't afford to go anywhere other than their local university, they shouldn't be at a disadvantage than those at RG unis. If you get tge same results snd same degree what does it matter. Might make people less snobby and prissy about uni.

Hear, hear.

So are you worried that your son with his amazing A levels and 3 years at Cambridge won't be able to compete with people with average A levels and 3 years at an average university? Why do you think that?

This is true but depends on the job. Some jobs, a university degree is a must such as teaching or medicine, but most jobs this isn't a requirement at all.
Like you I'm much more interested in candidates' working experience.

Then surely that's what he's getting from going, and what your daughter won't. He'll do far better in an interview than she will, he'll be better able to do the job.

Is he honestly just going for the name not the education?

What's wrong with Grammar schools?

There are lots of great unis with good career-oriented jobs and links with industry but there's a heck of a lot with really much lower academic standards, and getting a first there won't be the same. I don't care about it though, as in feel aggrieved, just think it's an odd policy. Blinding sex and age and name makes much more sense. Everything else I would want to know where it was from as that's a form of legitimacy for those qualifications.

That sums it up for me. I’m not upset. The companies that do this may hire a few positions this way if they are already successful and can take the hit. It’s not something that would be a good blanket hiring policy.

Whats a TRA? Thanks

But how many of these are Grammar Schools?

I meant to say what it did give me was academic achievement and analytic skills from all those tutor sessions which are great for my career choice, though. Just not any type of advantageous social network, in fact, as a very common non-grammar/private school person in the late 80's, I stuck out like a sore thumb! I hope that's changed a bit.

I’d agree with this from my own experience (now 30 years out of date). The networks came from the schools people had attended, not going to Oxbridge. Birds of a feather!

Sounds like a university which specialises in Horticultural Studies. 😁

Awesome. Can you also do %’s of %’s to see what that represents given how many children are at state school vs independents.

But that doesn’t mean they’re smarter or the students have learned the material. Or even understand it.

I was an emancipated child. My parents fucked off and abandoned me at 16 and I had to pay my own way through uni. I was oxbridge material (AAAA for a level. I did 4). But my circumstance meant I could never afford to go anywhere other than the uni I went to even with the grants.

does that mean I should be shoved down because someone was luckier to have a parent that cared for them? Because that’s what Oxbridge type unis require. Support from family be it emotional and/or financial for them to succeed. I didn’t have that.
I had to choose a cheaper area to live, that had a good number of easy access jobs, where I could afford a place within walking distance of the uni, that I could fully self fund my course without being burnt out. Why should I be penalised for that?

you forget all the barriers other people have to learning despite being as smart or smarter than your very fortunate cared for son.

my own DC will never make it to uni because of circumstance (late ADHD/ASD diagnosis) meant they fucked up schooling despite being incredibly able. My DC was predicted 8s for GCSE and will be lucky to scrape some 4s.

why should a failure by outside sources permanently be a barrier for them? my DC should have the chance to prove themselves as able as they are, as should I, without someone snobbily looking at our colleges and unis making sweeping judgements that they’re less good and therefore we’re less capable.

But all degrees aren’t equal @NeverDropYourMooncup - someone who gets a 1st from Cambridge has covered a lot more than the equivalent degree from uni of Hertfordshire!

I'd have to disagree with this comment...

If the degrees are equivalent, then there is no saying that Cambridge will have covered more in terms of breadth or depth .

They may different modules and specialisms in some areas but they are still an undergrad course in the same field.

Eg a qualifying law degree from Oxbridge and a qualifying law degree from another "lesser" uni is still a qualifying law degree and will have broadly covered an equivalent range of modules

The key difference is that in some cases, particularly areas such as law, the magic circle firms are still very biased in their recruiting in favour of Oxbridge and Durham.

Very much where you went rather than what you learned and not necessarily resulting in the best applicant getting the job...

If you want to be an astronaut, it’s perfect training. (It’s an actual NASA training course).

What subject is OP's son studying?