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

It doesn't bother me at all if white men are in the top jobs. The country is majority white and the men themselves are more career driven. That's why they earn more.

when it comes to top jobs it’s unrealistic to expect an even split between men and women, this is me being a realist not a sexist, when it comes to having children it’s us women who are pregnant and then breastfeeding. Of course it’s still possible but for those reasons it’s a lot harder and that’s just biology not discrimination

Its not a shock if a workforce proportionately represents wider society, no. White males are 45% of the UK workforce, so we would expect roughly 45% of top jobs and jobs in various sectors to be held by white males if it were to be representative. In some sectors and at some levels this is not the case, and White males represent a far higher percentage than would be expected.
I don't think its appropriate to compare something said about White men with something said about Jewish people. Being White and male does not of itself cause disadvantage and discrimination.

I disagree with DEI requirements as much as the next person. But I don't just think it's all for diversity hires. People still hire for skill.

As I said in another comment the uk is majority white and men don’t take the pregnancy and breastfeeding career hit that woman do.
Is it really such a shock that the workforce represents that? I’ve seen antisemites say the same thing about Jews in Hollywood tbh and thats not acceptable but it’s fine to say it about white men?

@Cloudeee Writing you are mixed race when you are not is clearly a lie. My DS is mixed race Chinese and white and clearly physically a bit of a mix.

DH has been involved with hiring for years. He once said nothing is written down but HR gets very questioning of shortlists that don’t have women on and it’s an unwritten rule.

Degree apprenticeships are ridiculously competitive. My DS did get accepted and has completed his. He does have outstanding grades and had a ref from the regional Officer of cadets for his outstanding leadership skills and cool head. He saved another cadets life at a military training camp. One friend did remark no offence but being mixed will have helped him get that place. I would like to that saving a life does make you stand out, it’s not just another DofE or grade 8 piano.

I work in a highly diverse environment. No one cares about your skin colour and we certainly don't screen for skin colour before reviewing a CV. Isn't that how it should also be?

Same where I work. In fact, it’s not just skin colour or race. We don’t care about gender or nationality (as long as you can legally work in the location you’re applying to) or sexual orientation or a myriad of other things. We care about potential and performance and demonstrating excellence both at work and outside of work. Amazing academics are never enough regardless of DEI you also need to demonstrate that outside of work you’re also special at what you do.

I work for a global bank (yeah I know, another one of ‘those’ on this thread), a very big name (obviously can’t say who) making billions every year. There are many things about my employer that piss me off (right now especially) but one of the things I absolutely love and that never fails to impress me is that almost every single person I work with in my global team (approx 700 across 4 continents) is incredibly smart but also has the “X factor”. They all have something in their background that you suddenly find out about from being a former international sportsperson to being a mountain guide to working in homeless night shelters for years to being a published author and it goes on and on. Almost everyone speaks multiple languages and/or has lived in a variety of countries. Quite frankly it blows my mind. This is also where the bar is set when we’re recruiting. So even at intern level, the exam question is what have done that demonstrates you’re special? Maybe this is something the OP’s son has fallen foul of but who knows?

Just to add, I’m a white female from working class background, small Northern village and a classic example of not knowing anyone in a corporate environment let alone banking when growing up. First in my family to go to uni (and be challenged by many family members about why I was doing A levels because I’m female) and all those other cliches. It’s only in recent years that some of my older family members have twigged that working in a bank doesn’t mean that I sit behind a glass screen accepting cash and cheque payments all day. 🙄

The current grad in my London team is a white male from quite a privileged background. But he is outstanding! Yes he’s made the most of his advantages but he is absolutely a person you would want to be in a senior role making decisions. Our most recent interns were all offered jobs and will be joining us as grads next year so 2 brown males, 1 white male. So it’s sounding a bit male dominated but actually that’s not an accurate reflection of my organisation. My reporting line is brown female>white female>brown male>white female>black female>white male. Yep, still a white male at the very top but times are changing and eventually that will too.

Do you think 'the best one for the job' is so much more likely to be a white middle class male? Because if not, then how can the fact they are more likely to be in the jobs in some sectors be explained?

Yes, I understand its the maximum you can EARN. That's what I've been trying to explain to you when you have repeatedly said a family has to have an INCOME of £7400 or less to qualify for FSM. I've been trying to get across the difference between income and earned income.
Your second comment is probably one for a different thread. Because whether children grow up in poverty because their parents have no incentive to work or not makes no difference to how disadvantaged they are by growing up in poverty, does it? And the schemes are aimed at the children not their parents.

I’m all for hiring the best one for the job tbh.

Childhood wealth is hard to measure a lot of it depends on the father all it takes is for him to leave for a well off family to become impoverished and vice versa say he comes back and the family are well off again. Or parents are in an on off relationship but dads the one with the good job.

Its not always black and white

Historically all jobs were dominated by white men in this country. Someone said up thread the uk was 97% white in the 70s and baring in mind women have always taken a career hit due to pregnancy and breastfeeding. Of course white men historically dominated the good jobs, they also dominated the shit jobs.

That's the maximum you can EARN. Then benefits on top.

Kind of encourages people to barely work if they are not really any better off by working full time

Its not perfect I agree. What would be a better one? There are flaws with most I can think of.

This. These schemes are to help disadvantaged applicants who would struggle to get into industry and have managed to get qualifications despite their circumstances and for underrepresented groups.

Yes although I’m certainly not going to be the one to complain 😂

The relevance to the thread is that the scheme the OP is talking about incudes FSM as an eligibility criteria. So clearly is attempting to be inclusive of people from financially disadvantaged backgrounds as well as other under represented groups.
Diversity does not refer only only to race or sexuality. It means having a workforce representative of the different groups in society and so including women, POC, disabled people, people who are not well off etc, in environments that are historically dominated by white middle class men.

Really? So you could be unemployed for a few months when kid starts school so qualify . Then get free meals for another 7 years even if you are earning a 6 figure sum?? Crazy.

Those aren't deprived kids at poverty level

And I believe under the 16k is only if you didn't get WTC so meant you were working under 16 hours a week. I do know how tax credit worked

I think it sucks as a good measure tbh like I said my eldest is fsm, we’re a pretty average middle class family.
Hell when I was a kid I was fsm and my best friend wasn’t and I was the one living in a nice house while she came to school with Holey tights and I had to share my lunch with her because she rarely had any.

There was some scheme recently that you were asked if parents received benefits when you were 14.

Its actually a lower percentage than it 'should be' because the percentage of children living on or below the PL is 31% and the percentage relieving FSM is 25%. Probably explained by the children living in poverty below school age. However, it's enough of a match to be used a poverty indicator in the absence of a better measure.

Although I’m not sure what relevancy this has to the thread I’ve never once been asked on a job application if I grew up rich or poor.
”Diversity hire” means ethnicity or sexuality and pro tip there’s nothing stopping you claiming to be bisexual or mixed race.

There are kids still receiving fsm because their parents earned under 7.4k when they started reception and they will do so until they finish primary school my oldest child is one of these.

The eligibility is under 7.4 if on universal credit or under about 16k on child tax credit so there will be loads of kids whose parents claimed child tax credit when they started reception. Which has slowly been phased out btw

Theres also army kids and adopted kids who receive fsm.

Those are your explanations for why it’s such a higher percentage than it seemingly should be

Surely no one can really think that in order to qualify for FSM a person must be raising a child, paying for housing, utilities and food for at least one adult and that child on £142 per week? And that 25% of children live in households where people are doing this? Isn't it obvious that this can't be and isn't the eligibility for FSM?

Then the poster (and you?) have misunderstood the eligibility criteria for FSM.
The criteria for FSM is NOT that a family needs a household income below £7400. How could it be, when 25% of children qualify? How could 25% of children be living in households with a total income of £7400 a year or less? How could anyone?
The criteria is that if the eligibility for FSM is derived from being a UC claimant, then the EARNED income part of the total household income must be less than £7400.
Under £20k income is considered below the PL. People on this income level will likely be on benefits or on benefits topping up a very low earned income, so will be entitled to FSM.

That poster was being sarcastic, if you take under 20k to be under the poverty line then you can’t also claim the majority will be eligible for fsm when the income needs to be less than 7.4k