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?

I think its really unprofessional to post this OP
I would delete this thread for that reason

I get why you are asking though !

Sorry but I think you should hire the best person for the job. It doesn’t matter where they live or what school they went to. In this case, B

Do people often post and piss off?

I'd hire A because their on paper quals show they have more potential than B, even though B has higher grades.

Getting a 'C' grade when your school is shit and your working part time to support to your family is a greater achievement and shows more future potential than getting a 'B' grade having had access to the best in tutoring and teaching and no financial worries whatsoever.

I don't know the ins and outs of employment law, discrimination and positive action but I would tread very warily here, OP, and take some good legal/HR advice before acting with what I'm sure are the best of intentions but possibly unfairly to one candidate.

I'm thinking particularly of the recent Cheshire police tribunal here, which is worth a look.

I don't know but I think I would go for the one who is better qualified - if you feel he is right for the job. Go with your gut - during the apprenticeship there will be plenty of time for the chap to develop, grow in confidence and develop social skills.

They both sounds pretty good and it is a shame one of them will be disappointed - is there any way you can point the unsuccessful candidate in the direction for getting an apprenticeship elsewhere?

When you appoint, tell them both that both were excellent and in the end it came down to virtually tossing a coin. Offer any help you can.

I don't believe their backgrounds count for much and it seems they both come from decent, solid backgrounds anyway and did well at school. One may be a bit more 'polished' but so what?

People should always hire the best person for the job - but people shouldn't confuse 'higher grades' with 'better person for the job'.

Nobody knows for sure at the point of hiring who is better for the job, you have to make an educated guess based on all sorts of data, including the CONTEXT of the academic achievements.

Teddybear45

We do not live in the grammar school area, unfortunately. But both my children are indeed in top selective private schools.

We are not working class.

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

Just because someone is white doesn’t mean they aren’t from an immigrant family.

You are actually saying you would discriminate against someone because they haven’t enough colour in their skin

Maybe I should delve a little further into why Ds hasn’t got apprenticeships he has gone for.

What makes the best candidate?
Personality and forecasted A level results
or
Performing well in a year long internship

You can't ask us to give sensible opinion here, only discuss principles. We haven't seen the requirements for the apprenticeship, the applications, seen them at interview.

Who decided what are the most important factors, e.g A level results?

What are you going to say to B when you give them feedback on why they didn’t get the job? ‘Sorry, you scored the best overall and were the best fit for the team but someone else cane from a less advantaged background, so sucks to be you?!’

Either you lie to them about your reasons for not hiring (wrong) or you tell them the truth and give them a legitimate reason to challenge the decision.

I quite often hire people who didn't get the highest marks in our assessment tests. And we pay fairly little heed to A-level grades at all. Uni grades are more useful as it's more independent study.

Tests and exam grades are just one factor - and are ones heavily influenced by your parents and wealth - especially GCSEs and a levels.

I am much more interested in their attitude and whether they can solve problems set during their interview.

I find sometimes kids who have had a very comfortable upbringing are not very comfortable with things being hard- they aren't that independent at learning and problem solving.

A kid from a fairly rough school who got decent A levels often has a lot more self-control, grit and independence.
That usually ends up being more useful to us than a A* rather than an A in an exam.

It's not because we are being so right on - although I do like to give people with less advantage a chance- but actually they do a really good job.

I am much more interested in their attitude and whether they can solve problems set during their interview

So then surely your overall scoring would take account of this and overall they would score as the highest candidate?

I don’t know but background shouldn’t come in to this. B may seem to have the better life, but may be witnessing abuse or have had a difficult early childhood. Middle class doesn’t necessarily mean rich - private school could have been a scholarship.

Although B is only at predicted stage for Alevel he did better on the internal test even though A has been working in your organisation.

However what do you mean by a better personality? Does that come across because a lot the people at the company have the same background?

When I'm choosing interns I often go against who has objectively the best qualifications and go with who I think stands the most to gain. I agree with you.

I quite often put a lot of weight on experience with a competitor, as you can often find out fairly useful information to give yourself an edge. Would this be relevant here?

The original OP hasn't been back - It is almost as though they have posted (some made up shit) to get a reaction. Surely not.

It’s not your place to play God. B is also a person with every right to apply. You don’t get to discriminate like you are planning to. It’s pretty disgraceful.

Or perhaps he's working?

I quite often put a lot of weight on experience with a competitor

But if you can’t get the job with the competitor in the first place what do you do?

How do you know all this about the candidates? I interview often and have never known how many siblings someone has???

And a year sounds an extraordinary long time for an internship, paid or otherwise.

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

They won't.

You hire the best person for the job. You shouldn't be influenced by background factors that you should know about. What next? You offer a job to the worst candidate because she's a single parent and really needs the money? Perfomance tests are there to ensure the best person gets the job regardless of race/religion/sexual orientation/culture. These tests ensure no-one is discriminated against. You are wanting to discriminate against a candidate, because you assume he/she has better opportunities?