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

I suppose I am bound to feel a bit sick reading this as my ordinary white son has just got a job, doing what he wants to do, at a London firm, having got 4 A*s, internships every year and an oxbridge degree. His skin colour and sex don’t appear to have held him back. He got several jobs in fact, but picked the one that suited him.

If a job at the top end firms appears to be out of reach, because an organisation has decided to recruit in a particular way or because you’ve missed out on that application round (my son obviously applied for multiple things he didn’t get as well as those he did) then go and get a job somewhere else. If you were in the running for those very high end jobs, you will get something else. Based on my son’s experience, a lot of this is hot air. If someone tells you ‘it’s pointless to apply for X’ have a good look at who is saying it, their real experience and why. What they may mean is ‘I didn’t get in’ or ‘it took me six months to get something’ but it’s much more exciting to say that female doctors from families of Indian origin aren’t good enough (I’ve heard that said) or various vapid statements about ‘diversity’.

This is likely due to all the years of minorities being excluded from many professions due to unconscious and conscious bias. I am a mother to a mixed race son who got fantastic results in his GCSE's last year. He has been trying for the last 8 months to get an apprenticeship with no success. He's not come across one application that states it is for black/female/disabled applicants only though. That's discriminatory in itself. Due to the industry that I am in, I am aware that many businesses have pledged that they will hire a certain amount of ethnic groups and other marginalised groups, as for so long they have been overlooked. I would encourage your son to continue to look for things and the right thing will come along at the right time.

There is a problem for white working class boys, that is absolutely true and it should be tackled. Hence newer schemes looking at social mobility.

They ignore physical mobility - that white working class boys cannot afford the travel and rent to move away to university or to do an internship in a city they have no contacts with. Or that they are not even aware of these opportunities because companies do not set up in their area or move away from it in order to promote ‘diversity’.

Does it reflect the workforce of thirty years ago though? Because surely that is the relevant workforce against whom the current group of senior management competed?

And why does the NHS workforce not reflect the UK population?

These schemes are imperfect, but I still support their existence. The internship schemes at not designed to exclude white males, they are supposed to encourage people who would never have applied in the first place, rather than people like your son who are already applying in their first year of Uni.

Similarly, if he's applying anyway, why does your son need to see people like him in the (stock) photos? He must know already that people like him get these jobs, or he wouldn't have thought to apply.

Discrimination in actual recruitment for paid work is illegal, so if your son has proof of that he should see an employment solicitor.

There is a problem for white working class boys, that is absolutely true and it should be tackled. Hence newer schemes looking at social mobility. These schemes are very hard to get right and they also cause upset, it's difficult to ensure the right metrics are used. Free school meals and benefits claims may well be insufficient as metrics, they might well exclude children whose parents have had better paid blue collar jobs but wouldn't otherwise apply. Is a working class boy in Tower Hamlets more likely to apply for a job in banking because he has some idea of what it involves, as opposed to a working class boy in Consett who doesn't? Likely, yes.

Do schemes for women and ethnic minorities attract a greater proportion of these groups from more affluent backgrounds? Yes, almost certainly.

So, these schemes are imperfect. But perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good, and we shouldn't default back to a system of 'white, middle class men must know best because otherwise they wouldn't have these jobs in the first place'; just because designing good schemes is hard.

Indeed and an article published today said the NHS management training scheme more likely to reject minority ethnic applicants. Given the high percentage of NHS workforce that are from ethnic minority backgrounds, I think it's reasonable to expect that the leadership should in some way reflect the workforce. And it does not. Really does not

Families don’t live on £7.4k though, at that salary they also get universal credit and possibly housing benefit. They could have a lot more to live on than a family on a higher salary - for example if they had a mortgage on a home in negative equity that needs repairs. Check your own privilege before deciding other people are bigots for understanding more about how difficult financial circumstances can work.

Free school meals are for kids whose parents earn less than 7.4k.
please check your privileges with that hefty 8k salary you bigots

White artists have won MOBO awards. The music has to be of black origin , the winning artists can be of any colour. They're awards for a particular style of music.

People can open shops to sell whatever they want- bookshops that only sell female authors; bars that cater to gay men. If No-one is interested the business will close again.

Now this makes me fume.

Just because you didn’t have free school meals you are not living a life of luxury and privilege. Ridiculous.

There’s this very nasty narrative (indeed seen on this thread) that white boys are entitled, have had their time and goody if they’re sidelined.

As for white working-class boys - who needs them? They’re somewhere vague outside the M25 anyway…

Discrimination against white people is ok in your books?

question:

if two males -maybe your son or maybe not and a.n.other guy - were up for the same post - final 2 - exactly the same demographics (white male same age same social-economic backgrounds hell even same accent hair and eye colour) qualifications /grades / scores etc -

both exceptional at interview… really nothing between them …

except the other person has a disability that whilst it doesn’t affect his abilities and he’s equally capable of doing the job as the other candidate - means the employer has to make a set of adjustments - (he can’t just slot into a normally equipped desk for example)

Who do you think the employer would choose?

We are talking about industries here that are very much dominated by white men, and rely heavily on "old boys" networks. In my opinion, some of these schemes are quite performative or tokenistic, so employers can be seen to address the issues that exist in the industry. I expect that white, male dominance is still prevelant, though - regardless of a couple of photos. If anyone does receive a genuine opportunity that they otherwise would have been excluded from though, I am all for it.

YANBU. It is important that schemes are open to all, and that underrepresented groups are encouraged to apply, but not allowing others to apply because they are the wrong skin colour is just racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is wrong in any form.

I used to think that this was just privilege-complaining until my previous workplace had a new CEO. She was determined to change our balance to be more reflective of society. As a result, experienced white males were managed out and replaced by candidates chosen with at least as much emphasis on race/gender than their knowledge of our industry. When I was recruiting at that organisation, we were told to turn down a suitable young white male and readvertise the position as otherwise we would not hit our targets. And yes, the female candidate we eventually hired underperformed in the role.

So yes, it does happen and it is much worse at entry level positions.

Thats unnecessarily rude and you are making a lot of assumptions about me. I'm a woman and mixed race, so presumably I would be eligible for some of these schemes, but I don't think they're a good idea. They just cause resentment and push more people towards reform and other right wing groups, which I'm very worried about. Plus I don't think current discrimination is a very fair remedy for past discrimination. I would much prefer places just did some kind of blind hiring. I think the line about wanting people who look like them is rather odd, when I go to the bank I personally couldn't care less if the person I am dealing with looks like me, I care if they can do their job well.

Not sure doing the internship gives much advantage as her cohort is still very white

Why wouldn’t it be? The UK is an overwhelmingly white population.

My cousin’s national employer moved a most of its large local section from his very deprived area with only a small black/asian community, to the midlands in order to increase the ‘diversity’ of its recruitment (their target was 40% BAME despite this being much higher than the UK population). His very deprived area is now missing one of its few large employers, and even fewer local employers of graduates.

Funny how they don’t include white British under ‘BAME’ in areas like London where they are now a minority….

Funny how they also do this despite positive discrimination being illegal unless there are justified reasons for a specific sex or race (eg sex of carers needed, or actor playing a Chinese character).

Has he really applied to 100? What feedback has he had. Maybe needs to make less but higher quality applications (and worry less about not seeing anyone who looks like him on recruitment materials).

My employer switched to only offering widening access internships as previously all the spots were taken up by existing members of staff family and friends who generally didn't need the insight to the industry or a leg up. No restriction on who can apply for the actual jobs on graduation.

DDs grad scheme has a diversity internship (but takes anyone if spaces not filled). Not sure doing the internship gives much advantage as her cohort is still very white and middle class.

All for the workforce being more representative of the communities they serve.

So now what you are complaining about is that even the Indians and Chinese who had better grades than your son don't deserve it because they are not well rounded; according to your definition?
You would be wrong.

But lots of kids from all ethnicities manage to get straight A*s while also engaging in extracurricular stuff and socialising etc. It isn't the case that v you have to choose between being "well rounded" and being "academic" - many families will encourage both. Perhaps those are the kids who are hoovering up all the job opportunities?

But he’s not. The whole field of all jobs isn’t (possibly) available to him but so what? The previously disadvantaged, outsider, applicants havd for once in history been given a slight advantage so that massively white top heavy groups can try to rebalance their books now as they face an increasingly muced population. Maybe the nonwhite, female, disabled customer base would like to see beanch managers snd financial counselors who look like them? Maybe they want an international (refugee) representative because those candidates have more to offer than mr standard type. Thats a business decision. Why are you complaining about it. You didn’t complain when the old boys club simply delivered your jobs to you directly by shutting outsiders out. You thought it was merit but it was based on artificial exclusion just the same.

How do they prove whether one grew up rich or poor or anything in between? I moved out of my parents at 16 and there’s people out there who are completely estranged from their parents.

Is the growing up rich/poor thing another thing you can just lie about?

I was sat in a university recently, waiting for my class to start, and I was observing a group of student nurses, every single person in a group of about 30, were black or Asian. This is in a very 'white' city.

Oh so now its not white bots generally who are getting hurt just working class ones? Surely they would be covered under social mobility schemes? The OP is specifically complaining that her not working class don isn’t getting the advantage not that poor white boys aren’t.

What about if you actually are female?