To be upset about ‘university blind’ recruitment

Well, maybe your DS will grow, develop and learn by being pushed at Cambridge. Your DD won’t if she goes to a far less challenging university.

It’s about the learning and the knowledge, rather more than the end result. People generally find their level according to their ability, their talent, and their hard work.

Many schools have no-one who gets into Oxbridge. Does this mean they don't have bright students that could rise to the top in their careers ?- of course not!

Getting into Oxbridge is mainly the result of privilege and its good it's becoming less important. Don't worry, he'll still do very well in life if he's clever and has the right attitude.

I imagine that firms that are moving to university blind recruitment will need to stop doing these events at Oxbridge (or do them equally across all universities which is impossible in practice). Otherwise they’d be shown up as being hypocritical.

University blind. Yup. That's definitely a thing that they're properly doing. Sure.

If an employer wants (say) a First in Geography, then they should see that grade on application forms and know the person applying meets the criteria for interview.

They shouldn't be saying "ooh but that first is from Oxbridge and that other first is from Northumbria" and only selecting the Oxbridge applicant for interview. Both meet the shortlisting, so both should be invited to interview. Therefore why look at uni in the first place.

Look my DH did law at Oxford. All the top city law firms used to lay on social events inviting all the law students. Free food and drink and the chance to get to know people from the firm. The hope being those students will then apply for jobs. There just isn’t the same clamour to encourage students from the next tier universities to apply.
He will get plenty of benefits by being there, some you may not yet realise.

I think it's fair enough actually. If he is a good candidate then he will have taken everything he can from the Oxbridge experience and will probably shine in any interviews.

However it stops Hugo and Boris who were only at Oxbridge due to their privileged back ground just walking into these jobs.

I worked with an Oxford graduate - senior to her, and you couldn't tell at all that she'd went to a top uni, I only knew when she added me on LinkedIn! I've worked with people who have gone/will go very, very far - she wasn't one of them. They don't always produce the best candidates, this sounds like a great way of recruiting.

to be honest it only matters for the first round, once you get through to interviews recruiters will look at LinkedIn

YABU

Good for your son who whilst I’m sure he’s worked hard, is extremely privileged to be able to attend Cambridge.

Children just as smart who aren’t as privileged shouldnt miss out.

Companies are also clocking on to the fact that a degree these days doesn’t mean what it used to mean and isn’t the be all and end all of someone’s employability. The worst graduates I employed were at red brick universities, I know others experience the same.

We don't do university blind recruitment, I absolutely refuse to. I'm with you OP.

Top universities don't necessarily produce the best future employees.

...to wit most of the government.

This is not my DS's experience, he is on a grad scheme in the City and was one of the few in his company that got on the scheme from a not so prestigious Uni.

Most of his work colleagues are from Oxbridge or UCL and have fantastic alumni's which means they have connections and recruitment fairs certainly seemed to favour them during grad scheme recruitment.

University of Herts has some very good courses that are academically as good.

What area/industry do you hire for?

It can be a great thing for employers. In the last many have been very biased to certain universities and, as many have discovered, that doesn't always lead to the right candidates being employed.

Dh's firm had a clear bias to some universities. However, good universities don't always produce the type of solicitors they actually need. A lot of the new trainees they've had in the last just can't do the job effectively. Many dint have the people skills to engage with clients from all backgrounds, don't have the resilience to get knock backs, do stuff wrong and then pull themselves back, etc. They have the academic skill - but that's only a small part of the job.

Dh now tends to recruit for his own department and looks way behind the schools and/or university someone went to. A sit down chat as part of the interview and being open to trainees from 'lesser' universities is bringing in much better candidates,

There are some Uni Names that would make me drop a candidate like a stone - normally the mega woke ones such as Oxford - I'd be wary of getting an indoctrinated, intolerant TRA in the team...

I do welcome this policy.

As the PP said, it's typically people from quite privileged backgrounds who get into top Russell Group universities, so this is a long overdue means of making things much fairer.

However, Cambridge will give your son such a great experience that his subsequent confidence on paper and in writing will make him extremely employable.

DD is an Oxbridge graduate. She went to a state school and found the academic work challenging but it was absolutely the right place for her and she had the most amazing 3 years. I think that whatever life throws at her she'll always have those years to look back on. She isn't working in the highest paying sector but for us that's not the most important thing.

Going to Cambridge or Oxford is totally unlike going to Manchester Met. If someone doesn't absolutely thrive and delight in being stretched to the limits of their intellectual capacity then they won't enjoy Oxbridge and indeed should go to a less challenging university. The people who get the top jobs will be the ones that demonstrate during the interview process how well they thrive under pressure and it will be a lot harder to demonstrate that if you have coasted through an easy degree course that didn't stretch you to your limits. It's not all about the university-blind grade on the application form and a weekly tutorial is very rigorous training for future job interviews, and for presenting and defending your ideas, and that's something that you simply don't get at most universities.

I do actually think it's unfair, and I come from a very WC background, first in my family to go to uni etc.
I have two degrees one from an RG with an excellent reputation and very high entry requirements, the other a former poly (work related). I got a good 2:1 at the former and a first at the latter. They were worlds apart, the teaching at the RG much better, the expectations higher, the work so much more rigorous, regular formative and summative assessment, expectation to attend labs, tutorials, seminars.

The former poly was dire, badly organised, lectures were appalling, no real seminars, only assessed work set, the work I submitted was definitely of a lower standard (working, studying, young child) , lecturers didn't know who the students were so there was little accountability, extensions given freely and yet I got higher grades. So an employer recruiting blind might think I had worked harder, or shown a better standard for the second degree but I really didn't. I worked much harder and learned an awful lot more the first time. I think if I put the names of the universities they would know that.

I would hope that the experience would be greater than just the ability to trade off its name. So exposure to leading ideas, thoughts, research that sort of rub off.

I didnt go to university so probably have an odd idea of what goes on.

As a hiring manager, I don’t care about grades/degree outcome/university attended. I rarely even look at these on an application other to check they have the required C at maths and English GCSE. Students are better off getting a job and building up their employment experience

The Big 4 and some magic circle firms are definitely moving to this. And of course some elite universities are increasingly turning down pupils from independent schools. What’s interesting though is that when candidates go for jobs with a ‘blind’ CV that doesn’t name their university or school, and go for competency based interviews, the private school and Oxbridge kids are still getting the jobs in the civil service over others.

It's because degrees are absolutely meaningless now. Every tom.dick and Harry has them and they aren't necessarily any use for most jobs.

Most young people need work place training, so it makes no difference if your got your degree in whatever from Cambridge or Herts, because you need to learn all sorts.

Why do you think Unis are pushing employment skills and extra curricular stuff / volunteering evidenc now? Because it shows that you're more employable than the 2000 other people in your university school