To be upset about ‘university blind’ recruitment

He's been rewarded with a place at a top University. His reward is a quality education in an incredible environment, excellent teaching, brilliant experiences.

For the top job he will need more than working hard as a teenager. He will need to show he has made the most of that education and if he has then that will shine through in the recruitment process and he will get the top job.

If he hasn't then no he doesn't deserve a top job simply because he got a place at that University.

I think most grad recruitment processes involve testing the candidate's ability rather than relying on just the university/school grades. Everyone sits the same tests, if the Oxbridge kids are better, they get the opportunity to prove it.

Exactly, although when I've made this point on other threads some PP who claim to be 'careers advise researchers' come along to debunk this, and insists that ALL universities put equal effort into their careers department.
never mind the fact that I work for a major employer and actually speak to graduates about what sort of support they've had.
Guess PP just swallow whatever they've been told by the universities.

I am with you on this one. It takes hard work and grit to achieve an offer from a top university. I think he should be rewarded for this with a top job The reward for hard work at school is to get into a top Uni not a top job. The challenge of getting a top job requires a lot more than just a high academic ability - those soft skills/people skills that no one was too bothered about when you applied to a top university become very important in quite a few jobs.

I meant more the links the Uni has with these companies. When we researched that’s what we found, not any advantage for permanent recruitment but internships etc. We were also told some companies only recruit people who went to certain uni’s so I think for some companies uni you went to does matter. Certainly not all and not my company (government)

Of course university should be taken account in the hiring process for many jobs. In the same way that degree outcome and GCSE/A level performance should. People love to throw out "oh but social mobility" without any regard for the contradictions. If you take away objective measures of performance you're left with woolly gauges like "fit" which for a grad will typically favour those from more privileged backgrounds anyway.

Note that this is very different from saying that the above are the be all and end all but they definitely should be part of the picture.

Not with The Smiths, New Order, The Stome Roses, the Hacienda etc. etc though.

Madchester.

I am with you on this one. It takes hard work and grit to achieve an offer from a top university. I think he should be rewarded for this with a top job. It gives an incentive to people to work hard. On the other hand, there are intelligent and capable pupils from blow income families (perhaps they had to work instead of dedicated time on studies or did not get the extra curricular opportunities to boost their appplicqtion) or who have mitigating circumstances that don't get to top universities. Although many top universities have good access schemes to combat this. There is still a way to go though song thjnk companies are recruiting blind to make sure they are not only selecting from an elite set of people. But I still see your point. Hebhas worked hard and is proud of his degree and should be able to show it off.

It’s great that your kid worked hard and is going to the top universities but that isn’t everything. They sound like they have a good work ethic that will get them far. Most importantly is them being happy (lots of pressure can make some people unhappy). I personally went to a met and there’s a lot of snobbery around it. My experience was teaching was good and lecturers were just as involved as a Russell’s uni (I did my masters at one). I would have never got into Oxford or Cambridge as I’m not smart enough however I have a decent job because of my work ethic and passion. Don’t underestimate these! I think it also equals the plain for people.

You do realize there are companies that very specifically target Oxbridge eg commercial bar chambers. Look at their websites - not a single non-Oxbridge barrister. I think uni-blind selection is progressive and increasingly fair in an unequal and diverse society, but there will always be preference for some unis in certain industries.

The elite will have access to global opportunities, so your problem is a minor inconvenience.

Some parents just enjoy the 'status' I think.

I do agree with this actually. I have 2 degrees. My first was a 2:1, my second was a first. Guess which one was done at a "prestigious" university, was taught better, gave me more skills and I'm more proud of? If the recruiter is blind though (and tbh even if they aren't, a lot of ppl are clueless about how "good" universities or certain courses are) they wouldn't have a clue and would be more impressed by the second degree 🤷🏼‍♀️

I think it depends on what your child wants to do in the future. Some careers require strong academic experience and many require the individual to progress to a phd. Plus, once at interview, the child can say they went to Cambridge and this may well prove to be a positive (or possibly negative).

Don’t worry, most companies won’t be university blind. Prestige, status and names still matter especially for competitive well paid jobs (rightly or wrongly).

But going to uni isn’t all about getting a job, I hope your son is going to enjoy his course! Much better that he does what he enjoys and falls into the right job/career that way as he is obviously bright. He will be happier long term

Warwick work hard to gain opportunities for their students as do a few other good universities...they work hard building connections with even smaller companies. They use creativity to support their students to build these connections too in a way that is time-efficient and cost-effective for both employer and student. As an employer they remind you frequently that their students are talented and eager to meet with your company, they are hard to forget and they are the first with their feet in the door when we have an opportunity.
And then there are the other Unis - their careers dept put next to no effort in and some of these Unis have great courses - directly related to our industry, we'd love to talk to their grads, we could really add value to their grads search for employment - we have tried to connect with them but their careers department is a graveyard. Their students are disadvantaged but now because of the teaching or the courses - the University is not proactive in building relationships with employers.

I went to Manchester Met and it's not all about the uni, it's about the course and the experience you get whilst you are there. For my subject, MMU is rated higher than the Russell groups. Chose MMU over UoM because I didn't want to stress on results day and the course was better. No regrets, Had an amazing time and not left Manchester since. It opened so many doors and a really successful career out of it. Unless you intend to go into academia, politics or jobs where prestige counts (I know it still does in some law firms) - then it doesn't matter where you got your degree from. When I'm interviewing people, it's about the person and how well the perform in the interview and not what uni they went to.

Ive recruited grads and post grads all my working life. Most people in my field hold masters degrees or PhDs.

Many employers now focus on grads with upper second minimum. Your DCs will do fine at whatever uni they attend, so don't fret but Cambridge still opens doors, so your DS will benefit attending Cambridge.

The issue to me is your DD thinking going to Manchester Met will be a doddle. All degrees and awards are moderated and you have a ball no matter where you go to uni...

i worked for one of those companies. Whist it is true to say the recruitment team was proactive on campus at a smaller number of universities, including Warwick, we accepted applications from students at any university, and the university attended had absolutely no advantage in recruitment. I know this is true of many other large corporates too. Just so anyone reading this has a balanced view.

Why is that? Do you actually have a reason, or are you just being rude and not very funny?

We do blind recruitment in the civil service but not for things like uni’s. Maybe they will in future. Many companies target top uni’s. For example my son’s at Warwick, and he turned down St Andrews for Warwick as he’s interested in banking and many top companies do internships at Warwick (and a few other uni’s) which leads to a permanent job if they make a good impression

As a recruiter it wouldn’t make any difference to me. I didn’t know my first degree was from a Russell Group university until 10 years after I graduated and discovered mumsnet 🤣 I go by experience, aptitude and attitude.

A degree is a degree. The misogynistic pricks who talk over women in my sector have all got Oxford or Cambridge on their LinkedIn profiles, so I wouldn't say that it gives a good experience.

Many a wild time is had at Oxford too, rest assured!

My husband once recruited a Oxford graduate and after a few months wondered how on earth she got her degree because the lack of knowledge she had in her field was shocking enough that she was doing her job very badly and they were having to actually teach her basic stuff.
So now when people apply, they arjt interested in the uni.

If you need to move abroad, lack of degree will effectively kill your job prospects.

Over the last 30 years, this has been more true than ever.