To think CV blind interviews are a load of bollocks?

It depends on the recruitment process really. If a job asks for a degree as an essential criterion then it makes no difference where that degree is awarded from, iyswim?

Most employers don't care where they went to school to be honest. Interviews are about figuring out if they'll be good at the job and fit in the environment.

YABU

I understand that employers are considering them for good reason. I think some organisations have found that by filtering out CVs on the basis of Oxbridge / Ivy League grads has resulted in real-life problems. The classic example being that of Group Think. A diverse set of employees with a range of experiences and skills is more likely to come up with solutions and spot different problems than a very homogeneous group.

Just because you're great academically it doesn't guarantee that you're a great fit for the job (unless its a job as an academic!). I've worked with plenty of people with amazing academic backgrounds but they've been trounced at the job by people who didn't go to university at all.

I do understand where you're coming from (I'm an Oxbridge grad) but tbh it's well known nowadays that diversity brings strong benefits to the workplace. If Oxbridge/Ivy League folk are all that then it should be no problem proving it through interview.

Because privilege, your parents class and wealth, are a strong indicator of your chances of getting inti a top university and a much weaker indicator of your likelyhood to be really good at many jobs. And because it's easy to say "Cambridge , must be good" and actually not consider the candidate fairly...unconscious bias in the interviewer

the children who get into Cambridge do not always work harder and are not always brighter than those that don't. They are often narrower in outlook and experience, they often have a lower work ethic. Often . Not always. And just based on my experience.

I think it's naive to think a 2:1 from all universities demonstrates the same intellectual rigour.

Ironically when we trialled cv blind interviewing our recruits became less diverse, because we had less scope to take into account candidates' backgrounds when evaluating their future potential.

YABU to assume that having been to Oxbridge automatically makes someone a better bet as an employee. I've worked with a few Oxbridge graduates who have been bloody useless.

I'm afraid you are being unreasonable - the case I've read about removes the CV for the final round of interviews - and to my mind it's a good idea - they all start level

There's been studies where ethnic minority applicants that changed their ethnic sounding name to a 'typically western' name got a lot more interest and interviews from when they put their birth name on the CV so for bias and prejudicial reasons, surely it's a good thing sometimes.

Why so angry?

I think the issue is that you can’t safely make assumptions on that basis. Someone who is intellectually very capable but chose to stay local for university maybe be overlooked by someone who isn’t very bright but scraped through oxbridge with a lot of help and extra effort. I don’t think it’s wrong to take university into account but merely as a rough indicator of the kind of academic study that person has done.

DFOD

I went to an ex-Poly, graduated with a very high first in Law (our university gives out about 8% first class degrees). I had to go to an ex-Poly because Red Brick universities would not accept my secondary school results as they were over 8 years' old when I wanted to enroll.

After my MRes, I went into a highly competitive graduate scheme which I may not have gotten had they not blind hired. Those Oxbridge/LSE grads I work with are mostly lazy individuals who think their low 2:1 from a top uni will help them in life more than hard work.

Why should I be at a disadvantage simply because I could not, for many reasons, attend uni right after secondary education?

Why should people whose 'name' or 'daddy's money' buy them the right 'credentials' get a better shot?

Those underprivileged who got to Oxbridge/Ivy League are on an even playing field with everyone else. Why should they have more of an advantage than other underprivileged who did not get the opportunity to go to such a school? Maybe some people can't leave home areas owing to money/family/caring responsibilities.

You are being very unreasonable and goad-y.

Because there are people like you who think "they worked damn hard to get there" (with the implication that people who worked hard but went elsewhere didn't)

If they are such good candidates, they will do well in the interview.

Of course, people who have the same biases about educational institutions will likely be as biased about other things which are less easily blinded in interviews, so it doesn't help everyone, but it probably helps some.

I think it's naive to think a 2:1 from all universities demonstrates the same intellectual rigour.

It's naive to think a 2:1 from the same university, same course and same YEAR can demonstrate the same intellectual rigour.

I had a good friend on my course who asked me to vet her dissertation for errors the day before. It had ZERO structure, drew vague conclusions and was fairly shaky. Her overall degree classification was still 2:1, vs my close 1st.

(I didn't say this obviously!)

It's not tarring anybody with anything if you are going out of your way to give everyone equal opportunity to Impress the company

After all why should a really bright hard working working class girl who was too terrified to even apply to Cambridge get overlooked because of her fear aged 17, ie as a child, of being out of her social deapth in Cambridge

Your attitude stinks. Why would I want to give you a job? Whoop dee doo, you’ve got a piece of paper from a fancy university. It tells me nothing about your leaderships skills, your ability to work as part of a team, be innovative, be commercial, be agile. Nothing. Quite frankly, people from other universities can often do better, because they value the job more, take it more seriously, and are less inclined to think that the world owes them a rich living just because they can write a decent essay.

Someone might have got better A level grades, but not be any better at the actual job.
The interview should interview for the skills and experience necessary to do the actual job.
Your university doesn't say anything about e.g. team working, generic problem solving, public speaking, explaining etc.

DH and I used to interview for software jobs. We used to ask 'simple sounding' problems (eg what algorithm would you use to sort some numbers) and go from there. It was surprisingly helpful for finding out stuff.

I've filled in a few of these, but given they tend to be civil service forms that also ask for every day of your entire work history, or you have to write competency statements that generally make it very obvious what your current role is, they aren't really blind.

From sifting and interviewing, you can always tell who is a current civil servant and who isn't, by their word choices on paper.

There's a lack of guidance on how blind to make it - is it OK to say you got a scholarship to a Ivy League/Russell Group uni for example, or 'an Oxbridge college' or a Magic Circle law firm? Is the aim to stop individuals being identifiable, so people's mates don't get hired, or to try to eliminate bias for/against certain institutions, or remove the kudos of all prestigious institutions (in which case putting enough subject-specific detail to be useful risks becoming identifiable again).

YABU. CV and cover letter and phone screen are for HR to worry about.

Interviews will be primarily for direct interactions with the candidate, and for the candidate to ask questions of the company. If they're good, have the right attitude for the job and team, and have done their homework that'll show through. Whether they went to an ex-poly, Oxbridge, OU or have no degree at all doesn't matter - it's all about the person themselves.

You shouldn't get a fucking free ticket to a top job just because daddy paid for you to go to Harvard or Balliol. Vive la revolucion, they'll be the first up against the wall.

YABVU. If Oxbridge candidates are such strong, hireable candidates, this will show throughout the interview process and they will progress. More often than not, when I interview, I find they are lacking in the drive and ambition candidates from other universities display.

Because there are still deep rooted, structural inequalities in society and particularly in higher education and the graduate labour market and this is one way (albeit a clumsy way) of trying to level the playing field.

I recruit and outside UK, nobody seems to give a shit whether you've been to a 'top university' in the UK.

I personally (nearly always) make sure we interview women (no matter what university) as it's a massively male-dominated sector and university for any other candidate makes sod all difference. And I say that as someone who went to a 'top university'.