To be upset about ‘university blind’ recruitment

So why is a student who gets 4 A stars and goes to a different university any less talented?

If you come out of three years at Cambridge without the skills or connections and know how to get a good job on application and interview without relying on “I’m a cambridge graduate don’t you know” then I’d not be impressed.

Great point

I'd be grateful it's blind, frankly.

If you have a child at private school, it's a disadvantage for Uni applications. I understand why (before the pile on) but at least yours is technically a level playing field.

And there are lots of other advantages of having been to Cambridge.

Don't make assumptions. The most woke university we went round was Leeds. DS went to Oxford and DD is currently there; neither believe TWAW, nor do most of their friends, but they just don't discuss it.

My DH has a first from Cambridge but a) he accidentally superglued his teeth together and now b) he has smashed a very expensive window by mowing the lawn.

Don’t even ask.

But…

…he is lovely and he has lovely friends and his Cambridge experience is something he’ll always remember with love and pride.

YABVVU. And I say that as someone with a LSE degree.
University is not 'just' about the job. It's about the intellectual challenge, the broadening of the mind, which is noticeably different with the quality of the students.

Or maybe you're worried your precious baby can't compete?

I have news for you - you never stop grafting.

At uni, you still need to explore, do extracurriculars etc. And, once you get into the workplace, it's a different set of skills. How you work with people. How you position yourself. How brave, assertive, and how you get back up despite being knocked down.

I have interviewed many 'elite' grads who are unemployable because all they did was study. Many 'non-RG' who were brilliant. And my field needs more than average intellectual ability.

Sorry. There's no shortcut to success in life. An elite degree does open doors, but it's not a guarantee.

If you believe that Cambridge to cover more during a degree, to be one of the best universities, to be stretching your son further than other universities, that the degree is better quality, then he will surely have a better skill set when he applies for jobs. Ergo, nothing to worry about.

Otherwise, it proves that it's just a paper status.

This is complete and utter rubbish. Both Oxford and Cambridge have around 70% state school intake.

Having an incredibly intelligent lovely DS who has an unconditional place at Cambridge doesn’t seem like the most pressing of problems
Like he’ll do fine in life surely

I’m a Big 4 interviewer - I don’t even get the candidate’s full name until after we’ve made a decision. That said I’m still finding that those successful candidates who are white and middle class are often from top unis (probably because they apply in greater number for the summer internships). But there is a much broader range than there was 10 years ago.

The headache that I’ve found is that many candidates who have not had to jump through certain exam hurdles (so not academic ability in general but that experience of rote learning for time pressures exams) are then unable to pass the professional exams required. So it is definitely time to look at how professional qualifications are awarded too.

Also, stellar academic ability does not always translate into success in the workplace.

My firm recruits university-blind and have people on the graduate scheme from many different universities. The ones from Oxbridge often stand out academically, but actually the ones who do better in the workplace / get promoted faster tend to be from the mid-ranking universities. I don’t think traditional academic universities necessarily give the best prep for being in situations where it’s not about academics / intellect, but more about competent delivery of things that should be within the grasp of most reasonably intelligent people plus decent interpersonal skills.

wow....so Oxbridge uni's take the vast majority of their students from private schools. In effect you are asking for the privilege of money to afford these children better jobs. Frankly that is appalling. As if the Tories are not exploiting the working class sufficiently, this thread just emphasises that belief that money means 'entitled'.

Lol don’t worry OP. A degree from Cambridge will still afford your son a vast amount of arbitrary privilege .
you can rest easy

But it depends what the job involves. Having “covered a lot more” in history won’t necessarily make you better at a consulting job.

The real difference with Oxbridge is the tutorial system. So much extra 1-1 or 2-1 time with professors and being forced to think on your feet and give detailed answers verbally, then debate and justify your points. This will stand him in good stead for all kinds of jobs not to mention interviews. And the networking doesn’t help. Also, some of the traditional firms eg magic circle law are still very focused on Oxbridge graduates (unreasonably in my opinion).

At Man Met, your other child will mainly mix with people of lesser ability. At Cambridge, even if she wants to mess about, she could join the Footlights and end up a star. Heck, look at the stardom Olivia Colman has achieved!

I had to work a hell of a lot harder for my Oxford degree than some of my school friends who studied the same subject at other unis. I basically lived in the library for 3 years while they lived the good life, only revising for end of year 2 and 3 exams. So yeah, graduates from prestigious universities deserve their advantage. You're living in fairy land if you think a law degree from Oxford is the same as a law degree from Canterbury.

But I wouldn't worry about the blind recruitment, it's not that prevalent, companies still organize all kinds of recruitment events at the prestigious unis, the networking is very valuable, the close tutorials with the professors are incredibly valuable academically and it will come out in the interview process anyway.

Yes, bit who has the knowledge of what constitutes a "good" university?

Who knows if a degree in classics is better at Manchester or Leeds? Is the 2:1 on French from Liverpool better than the 1st from Canterbury? Oh we have one candidate here with Geography 2:1 from Cardiff and another with Environmental science 2:1 from St Andrews... Which is better?

When you're recruiting from a poll of 250, you'll not be comparing that surely??

They already do these events at a wide range of universities- not just Oxbridge.

@minipie do you really believe this though? They want the best.

I’m sure going to Cambridge won’t be a disadvantage to your son in any way. Some companies may choose to be ‘Uni blind’, but many won’t.

There’s always a way to white wash for those that actually want to just hire oxbridge. They might have to be a bit more subtle but it’ll still do the job.

The problem big corporates were finding is that by recruiting from the same small number of unis they were getting too many hires that were replicas of what they already had. The staff pool was so homogenous that they were no longer cutting edge or progressive. They were missing better candidates. My experience of big investment bank is that in the final years before I left, no hires has been made from oxbridge, Durham, Bristol or Exeter which had been the standard milk round. The landscape has changed and new types of talent are needed. Change or become obsolete

Honestly, the benefit of going to Cambridge is in the teaching- the tutorial system allows a level of individual attention which other universities cannot provide. If he's actually interested in his subject, it's a great place to go irrespective of whether he gets to put it on his CV.

I'd add that DH often comments on the fact that the grad trainees at his workplace still come from the same narrow band of universities, despite the fact that they do uni-blind recruitment- the same skills that get you a place at a top university get you through the competitive recruitment tests. Sadly the unfairness that keeps some talented people out of the most competitive jobs begins much earlier than graduate recruitment or uni applications- we really need to reform education entirely and bring back schemes like Sure Start. It's too late by the time you get to recruiting grads.

which companies though?

and how does it work? - I presume just first stage sift, because they are going to ask enough questions to know in a second stage IV. If so it just means that good candidates who either ploughed their A levels or went to a less good school, and thus to a so so university, at least get a chance.

In which case fair enough

Your daughter is being daft as a brush