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

I don't dispute that. (Is there Greenwich uni? )

Now let's take two A-level kids. One diversity and one white middle class boy, let's add private school to the mix. They apply to Oxbridge with roughly similar grades. Who gets the offer? right, diversity one. Their skills and potential might be equal, PS boy might even get some edge, but he won't get the place, so end up in 2nd tier uni. Blind, incl uni blind recruitment allow them to compete again and level the field.

And this shouldn't be taken as a threat - if that Oxbridge grad is the best, then it's a walk in the park for him to win assessment and interview against Greenwich grad.

And no talk about diversity hires either.

Like don't remove what university they went to. At least not for the pre-screen. It is valid. It should be taken in wholly with interview performance as well. If there are many people who do well, who will your turn to?

A university degree is a valid signal to the labour market.

Great news! The BoE has OTHER schemes targeted to people with lower economic status! Lower SE status white people can apply through these routes. Spread the word!
We don't want lower SE status people voting for a party that will take away welfare support, the NHS and the EA all because no one chose to read up on ALL of the BoE diversity schemes and spread the misinformation white people were being left out. Do we?

The uni is totally relevant though. A first in maths at Oxford is worth 100 x a first in maths from Greenwich.

@MarcoRubio maybe it was Cambridge, def Oxbridge.

I agree that Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial require more effort then Nottingham, Southampton and Bristol.

My point is different though - when white middle class kids (god forbid privately educated) miss out on offers to the former because of positive discrimination and end up at latter unis, these kids don't automatically lose their IQ, soft skills, drive and attitude. So blind recruitment, incl uni blind, gives them another chance.

That poster was in bits because her son would lose his Oxbridge, SEC and race advantage and would need to compete for a job just like everyone else. There was no way to convince her that if he's the brightest and the best to get to Oxbridge, he'd still be the brightest and the best to get the job.

I strongly believe that the only way to end up all this mess and resentment is for larger and prestigious employers to introduce blind recruitment based on assessment centers and panel interviews. So CVs selected based on skills and experience, no name/age/ethnic/school/uni info. Then those who passed CV stage go through identical exercises assessed by panel. This might be a bit trickier for mid career recruitment, but for grads this should be the only way.

The 2023 one with a Cambridge student?

Do you not think that on average the Cambridge, LSE, and Imperial student has completed a more rigorous degree and is of a higher calibre to a graduate of Nottingham, Southampton and Bristol etc.?

I remember a thread here a few years back about uni blind recruitment.

Some large desirable employers went for uni blind recruitment to give a chance to groups which could struggle to get to good unis and so they admitted based on assessment centers and panel interviews.

One poster was in bits - her ethnic low SEC son got contextual Oxbridge offer and she was agonising that his Oxbridge diploma wouldn't give him advantage over those pesky kids who went to bog standard Russel unis.

See the CV. See what uni they went to, school, grade, work experience. But don't see any useless markers (ethnicity, gender etc) that can cause unconscious biases

If you really care about removing racial biases remove the names and don't report gender when doing the CV screening (that is fair)

But don't just select people based on their ethnicity to fill some blanket quota.

I remember an article where all the private school kids (who were talented) ended up going to HYMPS instead.

It seems the government have decided, due to it falling under manual/technical occupation.

But the lower socio economic status is what i dont understand. Who is deciding which jobs are eligible? Why are train drivers considered working class when that job is one of the top 10 best paid jobs in the country?

so why lower socio economic status AND black? why not any lower socio economic status?

do you know what lower socio economic status white people will do? yes, correct, vote Reform. Not sure if this is what minorities want though

No. Eligibility requires the applicant to be both black and have lower socio economic status. No assumptions made. Makes sense.

Yes. 5% of white people reported experiencing race discrimination. Some of these of course, were people who are white but not British, so their discrimination was based on nationality or ethnicity, rather than skin colour.
How do you know its a growing problem and under reported?

You’ll need to add in the growing number of white people experiencing discrimination. It appears to be under-reported, is growing in large organisations and if these threads are anything to go by, condoned or actively supported by many.

Countering the effects of discrimination by creating more discrimination though?

Making big generalisations about a group of people and writing policies on the back of that is just divisive though.

For example, the Bank of England appears to have assumed that all black people are poor and need to be given an extra £5000 that white people are not given, regardless of their financial situation. That just creates resentment and division as well as being a clumsy generalisation.

It means that David Lammy’s children would be eligible for the B of E internship paying an extra £5000 but the white kid from a council estate is not. How does that make any sense?

Finding something is not the same as being able to apply for a job ou would love to do, no matter what colour or background you have,

My dc are unable to apply for jobs they would like to do. They are discrimated against. I am not interested in hearing my dc miss out on opportunities because years ago things were different. We know. It doesn't mean young people now should suffer.

Young people also think- from the ones I've listened to who fall into minority groups - anyone should be able to apply. The best person for the job at the time.

The second is usually accepted as an indicator of the first. However, you got me. I haven't personally reviewed the situation of every single POC who has reported discrimination and checked their account against witness statements. Because that would involve interrogating 1.8m black people and and 3.7m Asian people and that's a lot of work. However even if as you appear to be implying, some POC may be imagining things, you'd need to discredit a lot of people to suggest there's not a problem, wouldn't you?

White able bodied males will with onconscious bias lean towards white able bodied males in the selection process. Where there are under-represented groups, these target programmes are needed.to bring in unrepresented groups. Its as simple as that. Diversity is hugely improving - compared to when I started working 30 years ago . I am glad we have focused recruitment like this. For me to agree with you, you would need to provide me with hard statistics which prove your point - "everyone I know says xyz" doesnt not reflect local/national/internatiional figures and facts.

All the best to your son. He will find something.

Actually experienced discrimination or perceived that they had?

No, they are probably extending their class privilege to the next generation.

Studies show up to 76% of black people and 67% of Asian people in the UK have experienced discrimination at work. Which, as its not 100%, stands to reason some will not have experienced it. Its also not unsurprising there is a link between success and not experiencing discrimination.
The percentages are still worryingly high though, arent they? And a bit like the NAMALTers, you can't wipe out the existence of the bad by diverting attention to the good.
My takeaway from this is that without discrimination POC are achieving great things, so all the more reason for initiates to counter its effects for the majority that do.

I agree, but the fellows of Trinity college Cambridge disagree. And they probably know more about it than either of us.

It's ludicrous to imagine that the best students are found disproportionately in private schools. Simply barmy.