To be upset about ‘university blind’ recruitment

Could it also be the courses though?
Things like Classics are only open to those who studied Latin... obviously not available at many state schools.

Although.. for a 'traditional academic university''... what on Earth is this??

https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/courses/design

Your son has done well. Congratulations to him. It's a fantastic opportunity and hopefully he will be able to make the most of it. Clearly he has nous and intelligence and that is what will actually get him a job in the future.

In his situation the journey is very much as important as the destination. You seem to be ignoring that.

Stop panicking over hypotheticals. You are over thinking. He will be fine.

Actually no they dont. Last year Cambridge took 65% of state school kids and Oxford 55%. An excellent piece of research showed that until three years ago Oxbridge were taking half their students from private schools. Compare the number of children going to state schools against private schools and that is massively disproportionate. I have many friends who attended Eton, Marlborough and other expensive private schools. All were offered Oxbridge. The parents of children I know locally, some who have attained 4 A levels at A as predicted, were not offered Oxbridge. Lets not be naïve. Its always been the old school tie and believe me, my friends who went to Eton are well aware of this.

what the hell is the point of going to a top Uni if no one will know about it

Let's hope OP's DS finds out during his years at Uni, even if he has been blessed, having parents who genuinely do not know.

I apologise for using the number of private schools vs the number educated at A levels.

I was trying to draw attention to the fact the first poster was misrepresenting information.

This feels like satire? Is it? I work in a sector which recruits pretty exclusively graduates and until very recently a majority from oxbridge. In fact there was snobbery about which Oxford college people attended!

But things have changed and we use name and university blind recruitment. In terms of who does well and progresses it matters not a jot which university people went to. It honestly doesn’t. We recruit for aptitude and thinking skills as these are the things that matter most to be good at the job. If oxbridge helps develop that then fill your boots, but Im quite embarrassed that anyone thinks that the name of the university alone is sufficient to get you through the door. It’s really not enough, it’s not a marker of future success as work and academia aren’t the same thing. And as others have said would be very bad for social mobility if people’s future careers were determined by how they performed in exams when they were children.

yes exactly.
I don't look at the uni name, although provided. I don't need to. I push candidates the same, and I can tell whether they've crammed, or whether they know what they're talking about.
And more importantly... can they build a map in their head, given the coordinates? to put it poetically.

For non-technical roles it's far, far more important that they have people skills, which quite frankly comes with more time doing things other than studying...

Sure, but much less so than the 7% figure.

The majority of pupils of Oxford and Cambridge are bright, hard-working and state educated. Drives me crazy when people misrepresent this: it's not only unfair on the students but also puts off other good state educated applicants.

Judging someone by which university they attended for important things like entry I to professions is deeply regressive. If you DS is as good as you think then his merits will take him through with relying on the brand. If he isn't then hopefully these new fairer systems will give the job to a more deserving applicant who went to a different university.

England has a massive hang up about Oxbridge that is massively unhealthy and it needs to be challenged.

The academic rigor of a low ranking and top university won't be the same. If the average has to be a 2.1, then the average performance of people getting CDD at A Level is not going to be the same as the average performance of a straight A cohort.

Where academic or technical knowledge matter there's ways to sift on those grounds without having university name as a proxy measure.

Equally, if a student goes to a high ranking university, has great grades, has made the most of the enrichment opportunities available and then applies for a job, they're going to have more to put in their application, be more knowledgeable, more confident and more skilled than the person who has gone to a less academically rigorous university, not worked too hard and still come out with a 2.1.

If someone has attended a mid ranking university, worked hard, made the most of the opportunities and is able to demonstrate employable skills then it makes sense they'd get shortlisted or appointed over someone from a higher ranking university who might have the same degree classification but none of the soft skills the company is looking for.

That's still disproportionate.

Honestly OP, it’s pretty much bollocks.

Once anyone gets to the interview stage, I will have their entire application aside from disability info. I’m certainly going to recognise that a degree from Cambridge is worth more than one from various other unis (trying not to upset anyone by naming any!) That’s not to say that would bear more weight than them being a good team fit though.

Your DS will be fine. Relax.

i worked for a global corporate. We never favoured any universities, even back in the 80s. It's always who is the right person for the job, not where they got their degree.

17% of A level students (ie uni applicants) are privately educated, which is the relevant figure. https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/03/11/state-school-admissions-are-rising-at-oxford-and-cambridge

and to @shmivorytower

It really depends on the course tbh.

Traditional 'academic' courses like history, mathematics, physics etc are very similar. Exam based, no cheating. Of course, one could argue that perhaps the 'better' universities have more sophisticated questions but most jobs need a certain level of intellectual ability, after which soft skills are more important.

More, erm, 'vocational' courses are the ones were rigour is sometimes compromised.

In any case a prestigious degree still does open more doors, especially in the more niche jobs, and abroad, where academic prestige is still valued.

I just don't think anybody who moans about competition is going to be happy when they realise what the world of work actually requires...

One point you may not have considered, Liz Truss went to an Oxbridge University, the shortest serving PM in British history and she managed to f*ck up the economy more effectively than any other PM in history.

Do you believe everything you read OP? Companies might spout this bollocks to appease people and appear inclusive but I'd bet my house that they look at where candidates went to uni.

As a recruiting manager, I have never looked at where someone earned their degree. I've only ever even checked if it is a role requirement.

It's fantastic that more companies aren't giving special treatment to certain universities.

Blind recruitment is just a fad anyway that will probably be all over once your son graduates.

It will probably be something new, like lottery recruitment, where all the candiates are allocated balls in a big bag and drawn out at random.

Why anyone would want to make a decision based on less (yes less) information for one of the most costly processes you undergo in your business (the cost of recruitment failure is huge) is absolutely mystifying and the height of stupidity.

Some consultant somewhere is chuckling that people actually went for that one. Probably the same person who came up with concept of "hot desking"

I don’t disagree with the need to work for professional exams, but mine bore absolutely no resemblance to what I need to do for the job.

I really don’t need to rote learn a lot of arcane facts - I just need to be able to know where to find them quickly if I ever need them…

Adding a coursework element and / or open book exam format would be better for my specific qualification.

Cross post @AbbaG12

I think it’s a good thing 🤷‍♀️

if your child has a good degree from an institution which provides an excellent grounding in the subject, that will show on application/interview.

I went to a top uni for my subject. I was actively headhunted as employers know the quality of the course. Over the years it has become very obvious to me that the education I received was very different to others on the same course at different institutions. It shows. We weren’t just taught, we were taught to think.

so even if they don’t know the uni, the skills and knowledge acquired on a good course will stand in good stead.

so I wouldn’t worry too much.

Jeez, lots of posters getting the wrong end of the stick here.

OP - nothing to be upset about. Your son will get a world-class education. I don’t think that many posters realise that Cambridge and Oxbridge produce fantastic graduates because they demand much more of students, particularly in humanities subjects. The tutorial system means that you write essay every week (sometimes more than one) and then get to discuss this with a top expert in the field as if you were equals. Students learn independence of thought, organisation, dialogue etc.

So even if applications are blind, the fact of the matter is that your son will still have had that experience which will be expressed in the way he interviews and in the quality of his application materials.

Or you could look at it as 7% of UK schools (private schools) make up 30% of Oxford and Cambridge's intake.

Just hand the professional qualifications out to anyone who wants one, in the interests of inclusivity? I worked for mine. Not everyone met the standard - as it should be.