Not to hire the best person?

[Undaunted77]

We are looking for an apprentice.
Candidate A is a second generation immigrant, eldest sibling in a large family living in inner city social housing, attended a notorious local comprehensive and got OK A levels. Is currently 3/4 through a year long paid internship at one of our competitors.

Candidate B comes from a middle class family, for a while was educated at private school, lives in suburbs, has had a lot of support & encouragement from parents. Is forecast to get better A levels than candidate A did. Has only just left school and has no job yet.

Both are good and very motivated candidates - but B’s scores in all the elements of the assessment centre were undeniably better than A’s, and in terms
of personality is probably a better fit. B also has no job at present whereas A is mid-internship.

Would we BU to offer the apprenticeship to A, on the grounds that the opportunity may be more transformative for A, and A has not enjoyed the same advantages as B?

To me, A sounds like the stronger candidate. I would almost always pick someone with relevant work experience
This is an apprenticeship, work experience shouldnt matter, how are people supposed to get experience when nobody will give them a chancel

As a daughter of an immigrant you are being very patronising Undaunted77

DH is an engineer and takes on apprentices. He looked at their results but also got them in for a few hours and looked at how they worked and their attitude. The last apprentice didnt have the best results but he worked very neatly and methodically so got the job.

I would hire A. I'm from a similar background and don't agree it's patronising.

What’s to say A won’t up and leave, like he’s doing to the place he’s on an internship.

Why is he looking to leave the internship?

If A has shown strength and commitment through the internship then I would go for A over the person who's never had a job

But how is B ever to get a job if everyone chooses an A type candidate.

Turn this around and why should the best candidate for the job not get the job.

Why waste money on tests if you are just going to go with the candidate with the best sob story.

Sounds like X Factor has permeated apprenticeships

You need to pick the best person for the job. However, you may want to consider a whole range of criteria about what makes someone better or worse. So instead of just looking at test results, you might also consider levels of motivation, commitment to a career in the area, resourcefulness, resilience in the face of adversity, the benefits of having diversity in your team etc.

"But how is B ever to get a job if everyone chooses an A type candidate."

Yes, those poor middle classes, how they suffer!

And being from a poor background is hardly a sob story ffs.

For those saying A’s experience makes him the better candidate regardless of anything else- why then bother with interview and assessment centre? Seems pointless do go to the effort of (presumably) paying for the assessment centre if the results are meaningless.

I’m not saying that the experience candidate A has already isn’t something in their favour (assuming good feedback from this).

IAmAlwaysLikeThis Fri 21-Jun-19 11:44:21
You honestly think that's fair? You came on here thinking that put you in the right?
Basically you're saying "I'm buying my child privilege" and you think everyone will say "how wonderful of you."

I buying my child education, not privilege. That's exactly the point of my post.

I see many people around me living in £mln mansions but send their kids in a local comprehensive. People spend their money how they see fit. Should their children get an advantage at an interview then?

And what if B has actually had a pretty shit childhood? Middle class and good education doesn't mean there wasn't alcoholism, some form of child abuse, bullying, deaths in the family affecting confidence or any other number of shitty things that could have happened to B. Maybe it's all been a bit of an uphill struggle for B too, but you're biased because they appear middle-class and well educated.

Hire the most competent and best fit for the team, don't go off background.

"I buying my child education, not privilege."

Suuuuuure you are.

@prettybelle -there is a lot of evidence to suggest that private education doesn’t offer the same opportunities to working class kids as it does to middle or upper class kids. Most working class kids with involved parents will get the same type of jobs they would have done if they went to state school. Where the opportunities do improve is if your child is clever enough for grammar / the top selective education private schools — but I guess if you’re paying then that’s not the case!!

I think you need to go to your HR Manager and ask for some training in recruitment and selection if you cant make this decision without consulting strangers on the internet

Why is he looking to leave the internship

Er, because it's a one year internship that s/he's had for 9 months. If they don't take action pronto, they're going to find themselves unemployed in a few weeks or so.

Maybe they've decided that the company they have the internship is a poor employer that they don't want to stay with. Maybe they want to see what else is out there. Maybe there isn't anything permanent on offer. Maybe they're a useless employee who won't be offered a permanent post?

My reading of the Op is that there really isn’t much in it.

That's not my reading of the OP:
Both are good and very motivated candidates - but B’s scores in all the elements of the assessment centre were undeniably better than A’s, and in terms of personality is probably a better fit.

IAmAlwaysLikeThis

My Ds is candidate B in this and if this is how apprenticeships and jobs are handed out now then that explains a lot.

Nice to know that he will always be discriminated against.

I work in HR. You should hire the better candidate regardless of circumstance. Discrimination goes both ways; by saying you'd prefer to take the Candidate B purely because of Candidate A's background, you are actively discriminating against Candidate A.

Arrgh - wrong way round. Swap the A's and B's in my post. But sentiment remains the same.

But it isn't the case that, in these circumstances, the privately educated B is always going to be the better candidate? How do you move on from always hiring the same people, in effect?

I work in an industry that is extremely undiverse, both socially and ethnically. The only way to change that is going to be via positive discrimination.

Chose A. It's not patronising at all. What is patronising is the way we're all expected to pretend that privilege doesnt exist. It seems like you're trying to make your assessment by factoring in privilege and how that will inevitably influence how good someone is 'on paper'....and B will be fine, believe me

Hire candidate A

Just hire who is the best candidate for the job. What if you let a really good potential employee go just because of some moral code and then A buggers off and leaves. I'd be mortified if I was offered any job on anything apart from my capabilities for the job and I agree, it is patronising to offer based on background. It's not the poor kids fault he's had a priveledged upbringing and it doesn't make him any less deserving. Blimey, how will these"middle class kids" learn to stand on their own two feel if everyone thinks like you do.

^My Ds is candidate B in this and if this is how apprenticeships and jobs are handed out now then that explains a lot.

Nice to know that he will always be discriminated against^

I know, that poor downtrodden group, middle class white men just never get a break.

It is definitely not patronising to help someone that could do with the lift. Previous posters that claim it to be are merely excusing their own lack of empathy.

Inverted snobbery at it's finest.