To be upset about ‘university blind’ recruitment

[Newname576]

DS has overcome so many challenges and has an unconditional offer from Cambridge after achieving 4 A star last year. He has worked so hard and we are so proud of him! But I was upset to learn that so many companies are recruiting “university blind”now - what the hell is the point of going to a top Uni if no one will know about it! My younger child says she will apply to Manchester Met and have a ball even though she too is predicted stellar grades as there is no point going to a top Uni

AIBU to be sad that companies are recruiting blind?

He sounds fantastic! He also sounds like someone whose abilities will shine through in any recruitment exercise.

OU, like other unis, depends on the course.
I did an Open degree in very disparate subjects and the modules varied dramatically. The easiest module was the easiest exam I've sat since GCSE. The hardest was harder than some of my Oxbridge exams.

Have you seen any reliable stats on how many companies are actually recruiting blind? No, you haven't, because there aren't any published There are some high profile companies who say they do this, but plenty of other companies that don't, and they will be rubbing their hands together with glee at the prospect of less competition for the top grads. So don't worry about it. He'll be fine.

That may be the case (and don’t get me wrong it sounds like he’s done brilliantly), but he’s also male, living in a peaceful western democracy, has received a decent education and is about to go to one of the best universities in the world where he will have access to amazing teaching and likely make some seriously impressive contacts, plus have access to a huge range of careers etc (at careers fairs and other events). In these ways he is more privileged than most people in the UK let alone the rest of the world. So does it really matter that he can’t write Cambridge on some of his possible future job applications?

This is just such utter elitist bullshit that you should be pleased to see disappear!! If employers believe any particular uni gives a "degree above" and can substantiate that then that's fine. If employers have decided that "uni blind" suits then for their needs then the fact it's oxbridge means nothing to them.
Hopefully it will help with the nonsense that an oxbridge degree is always better than another. Nothing to do with skin colour or anything else.. A good degree is welcomed by employers. Just because you're oxbridge doesn't make one better than the other.

Good for him! My children are mixed race with “foreign names” as my husband described them (they have his surname and their first names are from his culture) and this is precisely why I see the value of blind recruitment.

Well, theoretically a first should be a first, in the same way an A* A'level from one school should be the same as from another.

The reason employers are choosing to recruit "university blind" is because they have learned that the university someone went to is not a very good indicator of whether they will be a successful hire. Excellent candidates sometimes come from Manchester Metropolitan (including one of my Directors, incidentally) and bad candidates sometimes come from Oxbridge.

Partly, this is because of how candidates got into Oxbridge or other Russell Group/1994 Group universities in the first place. It essentially requires a good memory, because the UK education system remains one that is largely based on remembering stuff for an exam. It says nothing about what a person is like in a team environment or how innovative they are for example.

Our firm has also worked out that a lot of schools don't push their brightest pupils to apply, so we lose those candidates; then there are the savvy youngsters who choose to study at the university closest to home to save money; there are those who cannot be away from home because they are a part time carer (including an excellent candidate we hired from London Met last year) and there are also mature students who again are more restricted in their choices. Of course, there are also candidates who had nowhere private to study until they got to university too. Studying in a nice big detached house on a quiet road is a lot easier than studying in a council flat on a flight path and next to a busy road.

Also, the bottom line is this. If a candidate goes to a top university and emerges from the experience unable to attend assessment centres and out perform candidates from universities lower in the league table, then they're not really all that in the first place are they?

Think you missed the email to join the old boys club

In reality how many kids whose parents can't move into a catchment like Tunbridge Wells where there are five grammars nearby .. have them coaxed within an inch of their lives from age seven for the 11+ .. and then afford all the extra curricula that allows them to be 'rounded individuals' miss out because of money .. or simply send them through the private route that affords all of the above ?

My best friend was a head .. a 'super head' .. she had some fabulous kids in her 'failing school' (the one she was put in to improve..) on a level playing field without money , they would have swept the board but not against 4 years of coaching.

They would have been at Cambridge or Oxford but didn't even go to Uni as the cost was prohibitive..

I hope they got 'the jobs' .. way way too much money influencing Uni these days.

Hopefully employers can see beyond this to pick kids who have natural ability . Doesn't mean your child doesn't.. but money has influenced stuff for too long and it's made employers cynical.

👏

I taught at a post 92 new uni for over a decade. The main difference between these courses and posher unis isn’t the standard at the top end, but the distribution. In more prestigious unis few students get lower degrees as they have very good academic skills when they start their degrees. Post 92s give more people a chance, so average grades are lower. I’ve been an external examiner for RG courses so know this directly- the strong students at our place produced work which was just as good quality as the good students in the RG.

The problem is that so many employers don’t believe this and just judged our alumni on the institution, so I fully support university blind applications. Especially as our students often had such a range of skills to offer as well- most having balanced their studies with jobs and kids. A lot of graduate recruitment seems to value confidence and polish over these qualities though.

The worst candidates I've ever recurited have been Oxbridge graduates. Blind recruitment would benefit them as if I saw that on an application, I'd be biased against them from previous experience.

Hahah I can't work out whether you're being staggeringly patronising or just not understanding my point.

Yes, a degree at a top uni is a great achievement. But it shouldn't define the person, it can help shape them and be part of what they have to offer, but it isn't (and shouldn't be) all that they are.

I don't know of any 'top job' that recruits solely on the basis of one interview these days. There's usually an online test, then an in person test, then often a couple of interview type rounds, sometimes including a group task or whatever. And having a personality and ethics/philosophy that's a good fit for the team is as important for the new recruit as it is for their employer - with or without the right kind of smile 🙄

I agree 100% with regard to name blind recruitment - DS also has an ethnic minority name. But posters on this thread saying that a 2.1 from bottom of table uni X is the same as a 2.1 from Cambridge is complete nonsense!

I agree. Something is seriously wrong with that statement. How is getting a degree from Oxford or any top university not a demonstration of hard work? so those who studied hard and passed all their exams and got the right work experience which got them into Oxford are degree snobs. Those who went to less rigorous universities are the hard workers? not saying people who go to less rigorous unis don't work hard, but how have you flipped it that those who went to Oxford are not hard workers at all, they are just degree snobs?

I'm not sure where people are also getting the idea OP's dc is privileged? they said nothing about privilege in the OP. People have just jumped to conclusions that they must be from a private school.

It seems some posters are desperately trying to dumb down anything that says 'academic excellence' so that it is no longer worth the paper it is written on, no longer aspired to and no longer admired so that they can feel comfortable with their own mediocre achievements.. Wonder what their agenda is?

Agreed. 'A first is a first' simply isn't true when applied across all universities within a particular subject: there is (to my mind) unacceptable variability. It is markedly easier to get a first at some places than others. I also deplore degree inflation, which has been happening over the last 2 decades and has led to really quite large proportions of students getting firsts every year.

The lack of cross-institutional equivalence is one reason why external markers tend (generally, not always!) to come from institutions broadly similar to the one they're externally marking for - for example, Durham and York do a lot of external marking for each other.

very true. i usee to rue not going to Cambridge or Oxford. In the intervening years, I have read theses of the courses I would have enrolled in/departments I would have been and was shocked at how poor and basic they are. Yet those people gor better jobs in part for simply going to such unis. It should be about a person's ability not just the uni they attended

It certainly has. Trebling tuition fees ruined my firm's recruitment model. These fees put off a lot of fantastic kids from going to university at all, let alone to the ones closest to home. As a result we found our recruitment days attracted more and more posh dickheads (think the 21 year old who dresses like your grandfather, complete with dickie bow) than people who had a genuine shot at joining the firm! The last thing we want is someone who thinks they should be promoted because of where they went to school or what they studied rather than how they perform on the job.

The ego and competitiveness of academic is so unhealthy. Those who buy into it seem constantly anxious that they might not be recognised as the very best.

Meanwhile, story from the real world. Girl in my school group and I both went to study social sciences in university. She went to a prestigious top-10 university, I went to a small uni in Wales, something like 80 in the league tables. Don’t know what sort of time she had, but I had an absolute ball. Happiest days of my life.

We both tried for the same professional doctorate a few years after graduation, I got on, she didn’t.

The doctorate was run by a very prestigious university, but I soon learned that their undergrad course was crap. The big-gun academics were far too high and mighty to spend much time and effort on the undergrads. I feel so lucky, I got an excellent education, the time of my life, and the job of my dreams, wouldn’t change a thing!

4 years of coaching.! for grammar…..
Our friends started their children at age 4.
So Evenings, Saturdays. Plus their school was a Grammar Crammer. ( all paid )
It was discussed at the first assembly at reception.
Not well rounded at all, just taught to the test.

And yes they moved near the Grammars.

Your attitude would be very different if your kid could only get into Wolverhampton.

no disrespect intended to anybody who went to Wolvo.

Yes, but it does tend to be easier to get a first when you can study 100% of the time, rather than when you have to work 20 hours a week like a lot of students nowadays in order to afford living costs.

I’m guessing Aberystwyth?

posted too early complete with mistakes.

Anyway, op, your dc deserves to be rewarded by society for the hard work and overcoming adversity. At the same time, a hard working kid who hasn't gone to Oxford or Cambridge also deserves great opportunities. There is something wrong with the system and recruitment needs to account for more than the degree and where it came from, including adversities.

Well done to your kids and keep encouraging them