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?

I've been on the recruiter side of this.

Some candidates do try to get around it, putting things like "when I was in the Oxford v Cambridge boat race" in the narrative sections of application forms. Whether it does them any good is another question.

Yeah. I sit there with applications like this thinking "would I want to work with someone who is like this?" Then I pop their application in the bin and move on to the next.

Surely the boat race shows dedication and resilience?

I'm sure your kid will be fine. Maybe step back a bit form their lives if they are post uni applying for jobs. Also your other kid can't be that bright if they think they might as well go wherever as there's supposedly a few companies not looking at which uni you went to.

Wolverhampton require CCC for my son’s degree (and probably take lower in clearing). Cambridge require AAA. A 1st from Wolverhampton is not the same calibre as a 1st from Cambridge. I am therefore disappointed that a Cambridge graduate will be regarded as the same as the Wolverhampton graduate under institution blind recruitment. Makes no sense to me at all.

Take it you’re not Oxbridge.

Alos to answer your initial question yanbu massively so.

We have a huge problem with over privlidged and under talented people rising to the top. Perhaps this alleged uni blind recruitment will start to address this.

I did not get a first from Oxbridge and there's no way I would have found time to work in termtime. I got a first from the OU whilst working more than 20 hours a week. Getting a first from Oxbridge is very very hard.

To misquote Captain Jack Sparrow- yes, but she was PM.

@SchnitzelVonCrummsTum
Yes - when I was at Cambridge our exams were only moderated by academic from Durham and UCL.

My difficulty with this idea is that it makes Oxbridge students who get a 2.1 look worse than other students who get a 1st.

I don't really believe that a student who goes into Oxford or Cambridge with 4 A*s at A Level and has an IQ of 130, works very hard at university and does well but comes out with a 2.1 is a worse student academically than one who gets 3 Cs at A Level and comes out with a 1st from a lower ranking university. Sometimes they will be (e.g. because someone might really blossom at university) but not on average.

Just as an example from my own experience. I was in the top few students academically in my school. Went to Cambridge where I was decidedly average and came out with a 2.1, which I worked very hard for. But afterwards came top of my year at law school and top in the country in my professional exams. I know many people who have had a similar experience.

On my course we wrote 12 essays a term plus 3 pieces of language work a week. My friend on the same course at another university did 2 essays per term. We were expected to work fluently in two languages (plus sometimes my supervisors expected us to read in French or German despite this not being our degree subject), whereas many courses with the same name at other universities have no language element. My boyfriend at the time was thrown out of Cambridge for failing his exams (natural sciences) but went on to get a first at another Russell Group university with little difficulty. One of my friends was a brilliant mathematician (child prodigy and won nationwide maths challenges etc. during school) but got a 2.2 because of some bizarre grading system an academic was trying out at the time where they deducted marks for getting anything wrong.

I agree that degree class and academic ability are only one relevant factor in recruitment and for many careers not the most important one (though I work in a highly technical field where I think academic ability is probably the most important factor and you do need some people who are really brilliant academically.). But if you are judging academic ability by asking for degree class, it seems unfair to take away the key contextual information of what institution a person attended.

A fellow alumni! I got a first from the OU too and had to work. The OU was very similar in standard to the university I went to previously, which was Russell Group.

@Circe7 All that education and you still can't work out that no one really cares? Do you really think employers sit around a big table worrying about whether someone who went to, say, Southampton had to write a trickier essay than someone who went to Portsmouth?

Firms these days will set their own recruitment criteria because what someone does in academia is not a reliable indicator of what they will be like as an employee.

Contrary to the views of some in the Government, a university education isn’t a means to an economic end. It’s to educate - so improve thinking skills, knowledge of a particular subject and the ability to understand and analyse that subject. It doesn’t necessarily mean that a student from a particular “elite” university is going to be better at a particular job than someone who went to a post 92 university. It’s about the skill set required for that job.

Look, for example, at the recruitment process for the armed forces for officers- in particular the RAF, which is recruiting for specific roles rather than generic officers (as in the army). The rigorous computer based aptitude tests, interviews and selection board are focused much more on innate aptitude and potential to be trained than where someone went to university. So someone who hadn’t gone to university at all might be considered to have more potential to be trained as, say, an intelligence officer than another person with a Cambridge degree. The latter simply shouldn’t be treated as a meal ticket for life.

You’re being a total snob!
I’m shocked.

You do know that a degree simply means they can show they can study at that level? When you’re being treated in A & E, do you ask the consultant where they got their degree from whilst you’re bleeding out?

If this is the main thing that’s bothering you, you don’t have enough to worry about.

Actually new is correct.
All degrees are not equal, especially when you consider and compare eg the tutorial system at Oxford or the similar system at Cambridge vs other universities etc,

Or maybe it shows the applicant is sneaky / devious. After all they have been told not to disclose their Uni.
If you want someone with those attributes then they’ve passed the test.

But surely you can see the Wolverhampton student might be a whizz at leadership and your Cambridge DS might lack common sense.

The academics of a degree only help you to the interview room - you have to show you are a lot more than a degree to get the job.

If you’re only talking about the degree specifics then maybe, but she’s talking about getting a job based on that degree and others have pointed out, a 1st from oxbridge doesn’t guarantee you a job above a non-Russell group degree.

They actually do quite a lot to further diversity and broaden access. They make resources available free online so you don't need any support to access it. If you don't have certain required stuff, they will actually buy it for you and give it to you to keep - even if you don't get in. Many universities run summer programs for Y12 students which you cannot access unless you fit into the diversity/access criteria.

So here's an example of some criteria for one at Cambridge (not open to those in fee paying schools at all): would be in the first generation of your family to attend university, have been in receipt of Free School Meals whilst at secondary school, attend a school or college with a below-average A-level or Higher point score and/or a low rate of progression to higher education, live in a neighbourhood with a low rate of progression to higher education and/or a high level of socio-economic deprivation, have been looked after or in care. If you are (or have been) looked after, accommodated or in care, you only need to meet the age, school and academic requirements. The people in the photo are a rainbow of races, although that isn't mentioned explicitly on this one (on many it is mentioned)
Sutton Trust Summer Schools 2023 | Undergraduate Study (cam.ac.uk)

In that case fair points, my apologies I missed the extra info.

But surely you can see the Wolverhampton student might be a whizz at leadership and your Cambridge DS might lack common sense.
*
The academics of a degree only help you to the interview room - you have to show you are a lot more than a degree to get the job*

This!!

OP and others are still missing the point.

The qualities that earn you a First or a 2.1 from Oxbridge should, if you’ve kept your wits about you and paid some attention to personal and pre-professional development at uni, give you a big advantage when preparing applications and interviewing. To a lesser extent any more rigorous degree programme will provide this when compared to a less rigorous programme, but nothing compares to the preparation provided by engaging with the Oxbridge tutorial system for three or four years.

How am I missing the point, exactly? See my post about Wolverhampton DC first being treated same as Cambridge DC first. No equivalence and bonkers. So annoyed that so many on this thread think that I and my DS - black, crap state school, free meals, disabled - are seeking to entrench privilege coz he got a Cambridge place. Mumsnet honks

The entire reason behind blind applications is to

• chose the best person from the role
• avoid all forms of discrimination

Sex, age, colour, ethnicity, background, education…everything!

Surely every method to achieve this should be applauded.

@Hammerhouseofhorrors yes indeed on all other grounds other than university. A 2.1 from Oxbridge/Durham etc so far more rigorous than a 2.1 from Lincoln (for example). It is absurd that they are treated equally