To think it’s very sad certain professions are denied to some children

[continuallychargingmyphone]

I just didn’t know when I joined MN that if your name is not suitably middle class you are forced into a life of servitude in Asda or Tesco. No being a high court judge for you.

Or, aibu to think people are ridiculous and call your baby what you like?

Oh I agree Jassy - it's not ok, but it happens, particularly once CVs have already been sorted to take out anyone who doesn't have the qualifications etc - I hate it, but it's normal - and as someone who didn't have a lot of the 'soft' skills that are so important when everyone has the same qualifications as you, it's bloody important. Yep, people shouldn't judge, but pretending they don't is not fair on those who are lead to believe they had an equal chance, but didn't.

I don’t think anyone is pretending these things don’t happen - least of all me.

But first, there are ways to avoid it, and most decent recruiters in large organisations now do blind/anonymised recruitment sifts.

Second, treating it as an amusing anecdote rather than deeply shameful, per the previous poster, should be called out as disgusting bullshit every time it’s encountered.

I don’t filter out non white names as the name tells me nothing about the candidate that would indicate to me they may not be suitable. It’s not socio-economic background per se that’s relevant, it’s values and standards.

Nothing amusing or anecdotal about my post Jassy. Just a fact

How can you tell values and standards by a name?

And of course you have “chavvy” non white names. Are you that sheltered you don’t know any black people?

Nothing amusing or anecdotal about my post Jassy. Just a fact

I was referring to LadysFingers post about her clever and charming spouse.

She was told if her name had been Shannon from Telford and she was the daughter of a single mother from a sink estate, she would not had even got an interview.

How did the recruiter know the applicant's parents' jobs and marital status lindalee3?

I don’t filter out non white names as the name tells me nothing about the candidate that would indicate to me they may not be suitable. It’s not socio-economic background per se that’s relevant, it’s values and standards.

Why would you filter out any names, regardless of whether you think they’re beneath you? The children of people you think are ‘chavvy’ will inevitably have values and standards you think are sub-par? Or do you think it’s easier to keep people in their place, just in case?

You’re right, your posts aren’t amusing. At all. Christ.

I've got my head in my hands reading this thread. Grim stuff. The unabashed snobbery from some recruiters is breathtaking.

Where you have hundreds of good candidates to sift through, you devise a rating system which will have absolutely nothing to do with socioeconomic background, race and sex. Better still, build something into the application process that will act as a good filter, like a test or written task. Not just throw them in the air and pull out the one you catch, or go through looking for names and schools from an approved list, for goodness' sake.

Thank goodness, Gasp0de!

And you’re totally right. If the only way you can differentiate between candidates in high volume recruitment is whether you approve of their names, then you are running a very poorly designed process.

It's unfair, and their loss, as they could be missing out on some real talent, but when you hear, anecdotally, that some prospective employers start winnowing out by not considering any CV's posted with a second-class stamp, you begin to get an inkling of how unfair the system can be.....

The process works fine. Yes there’ll be good candidates who are overlooked but there are many good candidates out there.

Re black candidates, the city I live in was built by immigrants but the current ethnic population isn’t large.

And we wonder why we have a productivity problem, let alone stagnant social mobility.

‘It’s fine, I’ll take the third-best candidate because then I don’t have to worry about having chavs in the office or letting the lower classes get above themselves.’

Utterly despicable.

She was told if her name had been Shannon from Telford and she was the daughter of a single mother from a sink estate, she would not had even got an interview.

How did the recruiter know the applicant's parents' jobs and marital status lindalee3?shock

I was wondering that too! How can a recruiter know anything about the applicants parents from the application? (Apart from whatever possibly incorrect assumptions they make based on the given name I suppose)

I’ve never been asked for information about my parents on any job application I’ve ever done.

Surely if anything, people with names that you associate with lower socioeconomic status who are then applying with great qualifications are the very ones you DO want because they have managed to rise above their background and potential disadvantages - showing tenacity and hard work.

You have to ask yourself: "Do I mind people guessing my child's approximate social class?"
If the answer is no- congratulations! Name your kid whatever you like.
If the answer is yes-you are in for a world of pain because guess what? Some other signifier will give it away. So you might as well have just picked a name you liked.

And we wonder why we have a productivity problem, let alone stagnant social mobility.

We have those problems because workplaces don't like training up their staff and many people cannot afford decrees or other courses that they have to pay for.

Surely if anything, people with names that you associate with lower socioeconomic status who are then applying with great qualifications are the very ones you DO want because they have managed to rise above their background and potential disadvantages - showing tenacity and hard work.

Exactly this! They have the relevant qualifications and have obviously worked hard.

There’s a business to run, why on earth would I choose a third best candidate?

I work in a company of about forty people. At one point we had eight Davids.

Because you’re dismissing the names you don’t like theycouldhavechoseneve? Therefore potentially missing out on the best candidates. Example: you’re likely to dismiss the Irish names, considered chavvy by small town racists like yourself: yet Irish students are generally educated to a higher level than British people.

It’s actually concerning how little of this you seem able to understand, you don’t come across as very bright.

would not cause them to be ridiculed or singled out was not a factor in naming them. Surely most people do that.

I think that's partly the point isn't it?
Names tend to be popular in certain areas, and less so in others. Hence an association.

Kids school has a long line of Kyle Kia Connor type names are they are are regularly in trouble. I associate those names with trouble. There appears to be a lot of them with the same name!
Saying that Elizabeth is also a trouble causer!!!

I think highlighting the problems attached to unique names or popular names is q good thing?

We make assumptions, those things are happening, they need talking about, it needs to be addressed.

I know a GP called Nirvana

I don’t dismiss traditional Irish names though? I dismiss the Alfie, Lexie-Mae types. My experience matches that of Greentulips. I think you’re overestimating the volume of appropriate candidates in that pot of names.

I understand completely, I just don’t agree with your theory. If it makes you feel better then please do think of me as not very bright.

And if you’re struggling to understand where I’m coming from then read Cherrypavlova’s post of 09.16 on 27 July. That’s it, whether you like it or not