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?

Assessment scores should not be the sole determinant. A relevant internship is a huge plus. Unless a had substandard scores, a might even be the stronger candidate

So two people both score an A grade, but one is worth more than the other because the candidate came from a poorer background? Therefore B is basically being downgraded due to social factors beyond their control. It doesn’t seem very fair that B is automatically regarded as inferior because they were born into a middle class lifestyle.

This is a satire, yes?

Lol the opposite has been happening for years. Why not give the underdog the advantage?

Also, personality and “fit” shouldn’t come into it because people often feel a good “fit” is someone with their same background. Unconscious bias.

OP here. Whichever PP said perhaps OP hasn’t been back because they’ve been working, that’s correct.

I actually wasn’t expecting such strong or divided MN feelings about this. But in a way I am reassured that my hesitation is justified. There have been some good challenges made on both sides.

To clarify a few points:

• The reason why we know some personal background is because the candidates volunteered some information themselves in the course of answering standard questions (eg why are you interested in industry x? What made you apply for this apprenticeship? How did you respond to a set back or challenge? Etc etc)

- Although HR try very hard to make things as objective and fair as possible, it strikes me that candidates who are more socially confident and/or who have had lots of practice at home or school might well be at an advantage at the assessment centres, given the nature of the tasks they are given.

• From what I can tell, BOTH the candidates are good. We could hire either of them. Both would probably do a good job.
• we work in an industry that historically hasn’t been very diverse (in any way) and we need to change that. One thing we know is that young people who don’t have any family/family friend connections in the industry are much less likely to apply successfully. That is very much on my mind. I dislike X factor-type back stories as much as anyone but I feel in this context, we would be wrong to ignore diversity of background when making hiring decisions.
• I think this decision would be much easier if we were talking about people later on in their careers who have solid demonstrable work achievements and the chance to build more life experience to talk about. However we are talking about young people who have a lot of potential but haven’t done all that much so far. We have some quite subjective results from a single assessment day, a very short CV, an interview and that’s it.

The short answer is we haven’t decided yet.

Still not clear how the housing tenure came up in the interview. Seems an odd thing to bring up in response to an interview question

If A had had the privileges B had their marks may have matched or surpassed B

And then found he was too privileged to get the job and it would have gone to C who grew up on the streets after arriving from Timbuktu with his drug addicted parents but did well despite never having been able to afford the uniform to go to school.

There will always be someone worse off than someone else where does it end.

Judging by this thread I think he could be.

This thread shows why he'll be absolutely fine.

AnAC12UCOinanOCG

How?

"And then found he was too privileged to get the job and it would have gone to C who grew up on the streets after arriving from Timbuktu with his drug addicted parents but did well despite never having been able to afford the uniform to go to school.

There will always be someone worse off than someone else where does it end."

It ends with the fact that only two people are in consideration for the job so your facetious scenario is irrelevant.

So is saying if A had the same privilege as B

It's completely different.

It is completely commonplace that universities will look at the school you went to and interpret your grades differently depending on that school. Someone leaving Eton with three Bs isn't impressive. Someone with the same marks leaving a school in special measures that has had three head teachers in three years and is in a deprived area is impressive.

We don't exist in a vacuum. It's not a massive, random coincidence that people who go to private schools end up going to better universities.

I can sort of understand that IAmAlwaysLikeThis

But op is bringing race into this not just results from different schools

You think people who are white aren't at an advantage in the UK?

Go and look up some statistics and get back to me on that.

You hire the best candidate for your organisation.

You think people who are white aren't at an advantage in the UK

Immigrants can also be white, and as a 2nd generation immigrant candidate A could well be described as White and British, because he was born here.

Op didn’t say what colour the candidates skin colours were.

Candidate B for all we know could have a darker skin than candidate A.

Not rtwt but why strive to work hard to give opportunities and support to our children for them to be discriminated against for those very sacrifices?

Hire best for the job.

OK then, do you think immigrants aren't at a disadvantage?

"why strive to work hard to give opportunities and support to our children for them to be discriminated against for those very sacrifices?"

EVERYONE makes sacrifices for their kids.

You pay your money you take your choices, given the state of the UK, I don't think you have to worry about the proles taking over any time soon.

You’d be silly to hire someone on the basis the opportunity may be more transformative if this is a proper role you’re filling rather than some junior job that anyone could do. To think they may have more raw potential because they haven’t had B’s advantages, and would ultimately be a better candidate - that’s a good reason. But that’s not what you said.

OK then, do you think immigrants aren't at a disadvantage

In this case 2nd generation immigrant.

And to answer your question in ds’s case I think they are at a positive advantage.

Spoken about this before.

Ds has to get an English GCSE to progress to an apprenticeship (just taken his retake) English isn’t really a relevant qualification to the trade he wants to do.

However because there is a scarcity of British youths qualifying in the trade we now have a shortage. So we bring in from other countries people who have been able to qualify without any English at all and that is fine.

So if it is fine to have a tradesman who can’t speak English working then why do we insist on the qualification for those born in Britain.

I had a guy come round to repair my boiler recently.

Sent by a big company. I think he repaired it. Had to explain what was wrong with it through a series of pointing and mime.

Yet Ds can speak perfect English. 97.5% average mark in all his tests but probably won’t be able to qualify

Both candidates are British, but they are not the same ethnicity. Both are great candidates. Both of them are very employable so this opportunity is not the be all and end all.

Thanks to all who have shared their views - v useful.

Op your post stinks of white 'saviour'. White people thinking they can save ethnic minorities/ black people by giving them 'opportunities ' I imagine you'll post the pic on Instagram if she accepts the job?

bonniebellestarr

No. (And interesting your assumptions about my own ethnicity.)

As a PP said, you can’t be “yay” to social mobility and “nay” to decision making that takes diversity of background into account.

The only reason I wouldn't hire the best candidate on paper would be in a role where personality fitting in is important due to teamwork etc and the 2nd candidate would fit in so much better with the team.

In your case, hire the best person for the job.