To be upset about ‘university blind’ recruitment

In think PooPoolittlekitten is suffering from an excess of inverted snobbery!

$90 k a year to go to an Ivy League University, Oxbridge - £10k fees, plus accommodation in 2 of the most expensive towns, and they'll tell you the courses are ' too rigorous' to do anything other than study ( ie hold down a job too), and then throw in the cost of living, and the 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. Oh, and the high ( by percentage) number of privately educated students getting in, who's parents ave quite literally spent 10s of 1000's of pounds, and more, already.
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? Not in a million years, even if they could have afforded it somehow.

'thats the first thing you hear ‘privileged kid’?'

Yes. Rich kids go to Harvard and Oxbridge. Poor kids generally, regardless of how bright they are, do not.

@Poopoolittlekitten

thats the first thing you hear ‘privileged kid’?

Many at third level in this country are privileged but not all. To write off all students from those universities you mention is crazy

'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!'

A lot more how? This kind of snobbery is why blind recruitment is a thing for many companies... I hear Harvard or Cambridge or Princeton or St Andrews and the first thing that spring to mind is 'rich parents, privileged kid' not 'cleverer' than anyone else, not a harder worker, not more 'rounded' in any way. Just over privileged. And they certainly don't always make the better workers.

@LizzieVereker i guess your degree isn’t from oxbridge.

If you say so 😂

@TeaLeafTruth8532 You would know because you would be told to omit that information from the application and you often have to sign to state you have done so. Then, if you include the information, you wouldn’t pass the sift as you have failed to follow instructions.

Many of the large corporate firms recruiting for graduate roles will refer to blind recruitment in details of their process. There isn’t anywhere on the application form to include details of your school or Uni. I think the Civil Service does the same for some roles.

Do companies declare in their job vacancies that they are doing blind recruitment ?

I have never seen a job advert declaring this ?

Last time I saw an assistant psychologist job it was around the 22k mark.

I've just gone back to an assistant psyc job after doing my masters and the salary is 29,000 which I don't think is too bad really. Depends what company you're working for i guess

Psychology is so oversubscribed now. And you need to go way further than undergrad to really ever work in the field. I consider it more of an interest degree. It's fascinating for a lot of people (who then shit themselves when they are told about stats 😅).

I got very lucky that I took it no further than UG, did postgrad in something vaguely psychological and do work in the area. But it really was pure dumb luck.

The salary for an assistant psychologist is pitiful. I'm not one btw, it's barely a living wage.

It depends what degree I think. For example, I work in the psychology field my degree is from a well ranked uni but not oxbridge my masters is not. Both however are accredited. That means they both cover the necessary information for the job that I do no matter what uni I did it at. Experience is valued far more in this field because its a field working with people and skills that can't really be taught but developed through actual work. I know when I got my assistant psyc job back in the day that I beat out someone from Cambridge and my manager said it was because all the extra knowledge just wasn't necessary, they knew I had an accredited degree so they knew I had the knowledge needed and my experience was far superior.

How bizarre it’s like it not mattering where you worked before ! Some companies get the values of degrees and where they are from some don’t. I work somewhere most people have a degree and quite a few from top universities but you can tell those type of graduates, I have to be honest they are all pretty impressive (though can be annoying 🤣) I think everyone accepts that getting a degree doesn’t mean that you suddenly earn mega money but it should count and in many fields employers it does

I said "Oxbridge" because I don't want to give away any more personal information on here than is relevant to the topic. :-)

What do you mean covered a lot more?*
Do you not think there are common standards?
Not Oxbridge, but I compare the breadth and depth of knowledge my PGCE gave me compared with some of the lower ranked PGCE providers and it's eye opening.

We were given a much broader academic grounding in educational theory and encouraged to critique and evaluate policy. Now a lot of trainees I've worked with seem to be drilled in the 'what' of the classroom (eg following the prescribed PowerPoints, what to say to open a lesson) and don't have much on the how and the why. There's a noticeable absence of why on a policy, educational pedagogy, and big picture level.

On reflection some of the content we covered didn't seem relevant as a new teacher, but I think it made me a better teacher long term.

People will always have an unconscious bias, so I doubt you child will not miss out on the kudos and positive associations that comes with going to Cambridge. I have no doubt she has worked extremely hard to get there and very well done to her.

However the general consensus around Oxbridge is being influenced increasingly by the acknowledgement of privilege, some will have a negative perspective towards Oxbridge graduates on this basis. Of course this must feel really unfair if your daughter is not one of those who have benefited from the same privilege others have!

University places are so sought after that many are of the opinion that league tables etc. carry less weight now as allocations can seem pretty arbitrary when there are 30 plus applicants for a single place, in a very flawed UCAS system.

Students are increasingly taking into consideration other factors beside league tables. Fees are extortionate and the cost of living is very high, so many will chose local universities to rescue their costs for example, some will chose universities with particular social or sports opportunities etc.

Some degrees translate directly to careers eg nursing or architecture, but there are many (perhaps the majority) which don't have a direct career path and therefore having a degree doesn't necessary prepare a graduate for a specific job as much as actual work experience. Many employers will favour a candidate with work experience over someone with a 'better' degree.

The Oxbridge experience is certainly quite unique so this is something to be considered. It's also not for everyone. There is nothing wrong with wanting to go to a metropolitan if the experience appeals, bright and gifted people tend to do well regardless.

What do you mean covered a lot more? Do you not think there are common standards?

I have been in a professional occupation for about thirty years now and have come across many people with an Oxbridge education, I have truly never thought that they had a better degree, I have always thought they must have had good A levels though. I have also never really seen any correlation either way between Oxbridge / non Oxbridge and work performance.

Sorry you can't buy your way in anymore. I'll weep for you.

(They've clearly learned from this whole government of supposedly highly and privately educated bumbling morons)

There are some companies that will only recruit from red brick institutions. consulting is a key one! If he's interested in interning in procurement, let me know, we'd be happy to interview him!

I say it in here so as to share less info, less identifying - I don’t think which matters much in the context I use it in. I wouldn’t say which company I worked for or where I lived either.

I can remember one thing very clearly from my degree - that there was absolutely no way I could afford the textbooks and that there would only be one copy of a few of them in the library that disappeared at the start of the term. How were students supposed to do the wider reading?

I’ve since studied online at postgrad level and the internet really has changed this issue for the good. Now, these articles, pdfs, books are available to read. It makes such a difference.

Personally I'd be happy my child was getting a good education rather than looking forward to bragging rights. It's not about you...🙄

I had a huge meltdown over the masters I started. I'd made a huge mistake and wanted to change. The admission dept were uhming and ahhhing until they asked my UG classification. I was accepted onto the course that I wanted to change to there and then. It does tend to make a bit of a difference in academia. In applying for jobs? Not so much, nobody asked me where or what classification.

The only ones that did even ask for proof wanted the transcripts, so they would have known but the job I actually do? Nobody asked.