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

Maybe your DSD should have been more vocal and taken a leading role in the group exercise.

Everyone has unconscious biases. It's a fact of life. It's just how people are. I assume in other parts of the world biases are reversed. It's just how we as humans are.

My brown DS was hired at his job after 2 rounds of interviews. In both rounds the interview panel were all white men. In the first round the head of the team absolutely loved it that he and DS both studied at the same uni and both developed the same interest in the same field via the same modules. The man saw DS's genuine passion for the field and really wanted to hire him.

My brown DH is well paid and does well at this company and is recognised for it.

Who is going to work well with stakeholders and team? Who is going to best reflect and live the companies values? Who represents the ambitions of the organisation?

When it gets to hiring they still hire the white men, dsd got to group interview many times but the ultra aggressive men shouting her down in the group exercises got the jobs (they published pictures of the intake on their websites). Anything to help others be better prepared for that recruitment process is good

My brother was a hiring manager for a high paid, city job and went to a recruiter to get candidates, he was sent a list of potential candidates with salary expectations, all experienced and skilled, one who ticked two diversity boxes (female, ethnic minority) had higher salary expectations despite not much more experience than the other candidates and the recruiter said that's how it is now these candidates can ask for more as companies want to show diversity.

I suppose market forces are at play, as always.

so if that’s a basic, I can then spend time interviewing based on potential, leadership, cultural fit and creativity

@Bambamhoohoo what is ‘cultural fit’?

You sound very naive about the recruitment process, unconscious bias etc.

There is no such thing and it’s only people with no experience of recruitment who say this.

the vast majority of roles many people can do. They are not so incredibly challenging that only one person can competently perform in them and the rest are inferior.

when I interview, thanks to shortlisting and screening rounds I should be interviewing a pool of people who can all do the job. And that’s all I want right? The job done well.

so if that’s a basic, I can then spend time interviewing based on potential, leadership, cultural fit and creativity. I’m not hard pressed to find the “best person for the job”. Thats the easy part.

They may be. They might not be. If an organisation just hires for the best and finds it diverse that's fine. Measuring and publishing DEI is all work hogwash. Just hire who is best and treat employees with respect and decency.

I recommend you read the research article "Ethnic Penalties and Hiring Discrimination: Comparing Results from Observational Studies with Field Experiments in the UK".
3 researchers analysed numerous studies that showed people from ethnic minorities have consistently been half as likely to be invited to interview regardless of whether they're good enough for the role. The long and the short of it is that over the years, minorities have consistently been denied the chance to interview because their name sounds foreign.

The study does touch on how certain minorities can overcome this due to their own social networks etc. But certain ethnicities can't.

Targeted schemes don't discriminate. They even out the balance and ensure that this doesn't keep happening.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0038038520966947 research article

This is the same as the example at my old organisation and is illegal. Refusing to interview male candidates after their 50% target has been met is sex discrimination. Mumsnet would be in outrage if it happened the other way round.

In my field, 70% of graduates are male. With those quotas, 70% of men compete for 50% of places, and 30% of women for 50%. This means that those men that are selected will on average perform better than the women.

Shall we impose the same quota that primary school teachers must be 50% male, so that - given the pool of applicants - any male who applies gets hired, while better qualified women are turned away?

Oh I so agree with this.
My DD and DS2 also did fantastically well at (state) school and uni. They quite rightly landed fabulous jobs and are excelling in them.
I suspect that you would see DD as the disability hire, and DS as the gay tick box.

I assume just a particular targeted scheme he can't apply for, not that he's barred from applying for any jobs completely. I just went onto the Pwc UK graduate application scheme and anyone can apply. They ask questions about background and ethnicity etc but anyone can apply. It's not blocked. Now they may decide that their 2026 intake is not super diverse from the general programme and go do some targeted schemes to get the balance they want, but the general programme is open to all.

Why would the best person for the role be a white male?

and if the best person for the role isn’t always a white male, well done, you’re naturally diverse.

measure your DEi (measuring and publishing it costs nothing) and improve your reputation and brand for being an inclusive employer.

My apprenticeship - admittedly 8 to 6 years ago was 6 white men, 4 white women, one black man and one black woman, and one south Asian woman. Perhaps all the spots for white men have already gone to better candidates than your son?

@Leadonmacduffs That’s patently not true or no women would be on a board of directors. Women have often had time off for dc and have periods of not being present leading to reduced promotion prospects. However women earning a lot will keep going and see their directorship as the main prize. Of course women do get top jobs but it’s definitely more difficult for them. Women have traditionally been risk averse and tended to chose careers that are not going to lead to a directorship. This is changing but it’s a slow process as women tend to study humanities and not stem.

I mean it's up to their discretion isn't it? If a company hires and only white men (white people are the majority in the country) then it's up to them. If they exclude other talented individuals due to internal biases then the company will lose out.

Except - it’s been shown time and time again that when companies are dominated and run by men they hire and promote other men. Usually me who look like them.
So this whole ‘merit’ thing is incredibly subjective, isn’t it?

That's not a complete list of all the opportunities available is it? If you change to summer internships, very few have eligibility criteria.

I call bullshit on that without seeing evidence. Plus, it would be unlawful to bar white men:

"Positive discrimination is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010, which protects against unfair treatment based on protected characteristics. However, the Act allows for positive action, which is lawful and involves taking proportionate steps to address disadvantages or underrepresentation in a protected group, such as promoting a job to a specific demographic. Positive action cannot involve setting quotas and is only lawful when based on evidence of disadvantage and when all candidates are still assessed on merit."

No need to waste money on this. Just hire who is best for the role.

For all the posters saying "Ops son isn't competitive enough" please make sure you read the post before commenting.

The Ops son is NOT allowed to apply for roles that he might be eminently qualified for simply because of his skin colour. He can't ask to be assessed.

Rishi, who went to Winchester, and his children who are undoubtedly highly privileged could submit an application as they are not barred. Double opportunities if Rishi has daughters. Whereas a white male lad from a poor immigrant family couldn't apply...that's the messed up situation.

If you make comments saying he isn't competitive enough then it's obvious you are just trolling or have difficulty understanding.

It’s not a lie. I said I applied for loads of jobs with my shit cv and got rejected then I applied for one job and put I was bi and mixed race and got the job. Didn’t say that was definitely why just said it is what happened.

Not sure why it’s so unbelievable tbh

It won’t be as bad as you think. There will always be some schemes that are targeted at specific candidates only (eg black candidates into law where there is serious underrepresentation). But the vast majority it will still be meritocracy but with some targets - and it’s been this way as long as I can remember in my company - so it isn’t a sudden change.

My work targets 50/50 male/female so sometimes if the male’s spots are full only women will be interviewed for the last few spaces. Ethnicity target I think is 20% non white but in all honesty that one is skewed, the numbers of applicants coming through at interview can sometimes be 80%+ non white and the company is uncomfortable with it as it is kind of lacking diverse the other way. It’s for a very mainstream large company, I don’t know why so few white people apply or get through initial screening.

You have literally said you have no idea why you got the job, saying maybe it was DEI maybe not.
So saying that you got your job by pretending to be bi/ mixed race is a lie isn’t it?