To Think that Grad & Apprenticeships are now only for Diversity Candidates

Going back to my DS again he actually dropped out of A Levels and changed to BTEC’s as he didn’t enjoy them. What got him the degree apprenticeship was that he spent the whole of Summer taking up every bit of work experience and online accreditations that he could get his hands on, got offered an internship after 6th firm college and proved himself that year. He did well at school but not the 4 A stars at A Levels and although would have got Russell Group he wouldn’t have got Oxbridge or LSE nor would have wanted to. Work ethic if you can get a foot in the door is everything.

So they didn't do well at school, didn't do well at uni but despite all this they are gonna be the best productive employees at work?

I assume the grad would be working with colleagues to design the bridge?

The excel work takes brains. At least the one my DS does. He's not in finance. He's moreso an industry economist and does cost benefit analysis modelling. He's had to design complicated models for his research papers and consultancy projects. This takes time and planning with the assumptions and calculation methodologies rigorously tested. There's been an increased demand in coding skills and the need for python and writing scripts to handle and interpret data.

At an event he bumped into a PhD Maths graduate who is using directly using his maths skills in modelling energy storage technologies. He could have worked in a quant fund but wanted to do something more meaningful.

Yes grad jobs. I work in finance and the roles and qualifications don’t take much brain. Grads do PowerPoint and excel work. No one is interested in their academics.

i assume you are well aware that no grad is designing a bridge.

Someone with a 2.2 (barring extenuating circumstances) worked less hard and is less intelligent than someone who smashed a first class honours. Given the multitude of graduates in the UK, makes sense to narrow down to some extent on university and grade.

I admit that I’m not the most patient person at the best of times (that’s bulge bracket directors for you 😜) but holy hell it’s like talking to a particularly dense brick wall.😡 Which bit of disadvantaged do you not understand?! Are you not able to appreciate that some people’s backgrounds and/or entire lives are effectively “extenuating circumstances”? “Smashing a first class degree” is an indicator of academic prowess but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are the best candidate for the job (unless it’s being an academic!).

I think removing, names and genders is sensible. Just keep the relevant data and don't hire to tick a box.

Please look at this link from one of Tower Hamlets worst performing secondary schools (only 39% of pupils get 5+ in english and maths at GCSE). It has pupils that get into Imperial, Kings and Oxford, as well as course such as medicine etc.

https://www.mulberryacademyshoreditch.org/19903-2/

There is no need to have low expectations just because someone is from a less privileged background.

My ds also had disadvantaged friends at LSE. They both didn't have much money growing up. One of them grew up in a world of despair. Both got into LSE and worked hard. Despite their disadvantaged upbringing they preserved.

Congrats to him! 🥳

Entry level as in working at Tesco? Or a grad job? You do need some skills and intelligence to work at a grad job? Some intellectual thinking is needed. Would Arup high a civil engineer who only got a 2.2? I wouldn't want them designing bridges or critical infrastructure. My ds is a professional economist and some level of intellect is needed for his role and the work he does. DS does do quantitative models.

Someone with a 2.2 (barring extenuating circumstances) worked less hard and is less intelligent than someone who smashed a first class honours. Given the multitude of graduates in the UK, makes sense to narrow down to some extent on university and grade.

one could argue (and they do) that you’re replying on old fashioned measures of success and will get exam taking machines.
@Bambamhoohoo

What are the methods used now to choose candidates?* *Do they take written tests or is more importance added to an interview?

Absolute rubbish my white very middle class DS has secured a degree apprenticeship at a blue chip tech company and was offered another at another major tech company shortly after. He got it as he was the best candidate together with the rest of the young people on the scheme regardless of race, religion and background.

Less well qualified at 17, not by the time they have their degree.

Perhaps is all the brown, disabled gays and women getting the top jobs nowadays, what do I know, but I can tell you that the resumes at our global company now have personal details removed before going to the hiring managers because research into why the majority of our workforce was white and middle class and western named showed that candidates with non-white, non western sounding names weren’t even getting to initial interview stages.

And for senior roles women - or let’s say females sounding names - regardless of ethnicity of names weren’t getting to initial interview stages either.
Probably just a coincidence …

Well if she can they all can right?

My cousin grew up in newham ( well from age 15 when she came into the uk). Went to a school called Little Ilford which wasn't a great school. She did get AAA and went to LSE

so the answer is- make a disadvantaged young person present like a graspy lower middle class person, then you’ll give them a chance?

the problem isn’t university. These are jobs, there is no reason someone with a 2:2 would be better or worse at an entry level job than someone with a first. It’s isn’t an academic exercise and frankly, you don’t need to be that bright for the majority of entry level roles.

the problem is that people like yourself believe the path to success is exam- good uni- and that has been disrupted. The rules changed just as you learnt them. It’s galling.

Many pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in Tower Hamlets achieve AAA and higher. They don't go to UEL when they can get into UCL, Imperial or King's.

If you believe this then you really have zero clue about the complex challenges (including cultural as well as financial) and prejudices many disadvantaged students / young people in Tower Hamlets are facing.

If their uni results were shit... Then maybe not. I definitely wouldn't support hiring people with 2.2s and 3rds. People can look at things contextually. You can look at leadership stuff and extra curicullars they ran whilst at uni. How they worked to overcome their hardship. You can also look at their passion for the job and see their skills at interviews. See if they have technical skills and soft skills.

Dropping out of Oxbridge or the Russell Group is not always about being academically inferior. There are other pressures that come into play for even the academically gifted.

What does “take disadvantage into account” mean? If you’re not going to give them an opportunity to do the job because they’re at a shit university and got shit a level results what’s the point?

Of course there is a strong correlation between more competitive universities and effective employees. The spurious variables are intelligence and conscientiousness. And of course there are tails and outliers.

Frankly businesses are trying to make money. Not solve all society’s ills. By making money they drive the economy and provide the taxes we need for the common good and for redistribution. That is and should remain their core purpose.

We choose to put some rules on them because we think it is more fair. This is usually at the expense of absolute efficiency and effectiveness. That’s fine. Somethings are worth it. Especially social cohesiveness and getting everyone engaged in the job market. But forcing them to do things they find, expensive, burdensome and suboptimal comes at a cost to us collectively.

People are hired for the value you they can create in the context of a particular organisation. Forcing employers to conform to what someone else thinks is fair, just or convenient should always be challenged. Special pleading, complex justifications etc are just a redistribution to special interests away from the whole.

Higher education is supposed to be a signal to the Labour market that you have skills. Some unis are harder to get into than others. Some courses are more academically rigourous that others. DS knows a few people who had to drop out of LSE after their first year and redo uni elsewhere at a lower quality but still RG uni.

There's also some human capital accumulation as well as you learn things.

If you live at home in London there's so many better unis on Ur doorstep.