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?

Well, they don't know who will apply. They may be willing to take someone from another uni who shines at interview, as they should be. Though they might have two very similar candidates and be looking for the thing that separates them. That thing could be the level of the degree. It is a fact that not all degrees are equal.

I don't think it really matters, in the sense that the contacts built up and opportunities for placements, etc, will be vastly superior for op's son. I do think that a first from some universities means more than others.

I'm a barrister. We recruit university blind and have done so for many years. Even before that, we gave applicants the same marks for a first regardless of where it came from (although we could see the university). We still have a disproportionate number of Oxbridge graduates amongst our recruits. I've long suspected it's because the tutorial system at Oxbridge develops the skills we tend to be looking for at interview. There are all sorts of ways in which an Oxbridge degree benefits graduates, and as a comprehensive school educated Oxbridge graduate myself I think university blind recruiting is absolutely the way forward. You should be concentrating on whether the applicant has shown they're suited to the job overall, not where their degree comes from.

TBH I think it depends on whether you are working in the concept areas and continuing to exercise your brain in learning as to whether you would find a second degree easier than a first.

For example, during my first degree there were some concepts that seemed to be very hard, so I just didn't bother with them, only to find during my PhD they were very useful and I used them a lot. The problem wasn't that they were too hard. The problem was I gave up trying to understand them too easily.

As you get older you learn more and more concepts and over time see concepts re-used in different areas again and again. I'm pretty confident now if I went back to do my first degree I would ace much of the stuff I then found difficult, but that is only because I have continued to develop my skills in the same area I took my degree in. If i went into another type of area to work I am not sure it would be the case at all.

Whether I could sit myself down on an arse numbing seat for 5 hours of lectures in a row again, that's a different question...

Not all Unis are the same. Of course not.

But people are interviewed for jobs ( not unis)

People do jobs ( not unis )

Interviewers employ people ( not unis)

Your son should get a great education at Cambridge and all kudos to him. That great education and achievement should help him stand out at any blind interview scenario.

Yes you're BU if you think there's some sort of pause button after 'university entrance' which means everything else should just follow.

There are of course (and some Mumsnetters might be fainting as they read) plenty of very academically strong young people who don't even want to go to Oxbridge. Maybe the course isn't what they want, or they want to go to a big city, or they dislike the teaching methods. Not to mention the very strong candidates who just don't get in every year because there has to be a cut off somewhere. So it's quite a fallacy, outside any wider diversity of access issues, that Oxbridge contains all the 'best' academic brains even, let alone all the best future workforce.

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

What a ridiculous comment. Is it the Uni equivalent of 'There's no point in working when others get so many benefits, I might as well not work'? I mean, ok, go on then. I'm currently recruiting for a new IT company. I'm not particularly interested in which Uni the applicants went to, I would be very much interested, and not in a good way, in an attitude like that though.

So it's quite a fallacy, outside any wider diversity of access issues, that Oxbridge contains all the 'best' academic brains even, let alone all the best future workforce.

Has anyone made that claim?

I have to disagree. The OU was not just more challenging for me, it was also much more rewarding. At my bricks and mortar university my lecturers never really knew me, the contact time was "barely any" and the questions were facile. I once handed in an essay I had written as practice during my A-Levels and got a higher mark in my last year at university!

At the OU, my tutors made an effort to get to know me, talked through the materials, the books and lectures were much more rewarding and to be honest they repaired what was a pretty jaded opinion of higher education.

Repeatedly, throughout this thread, yes.

As a recruiter by the way, if I'm not operating institution blind, I am always drawn to OU candidates as to be able to do a degree in that way demonstrates fantastic skills in time management, resource, drive and initiative. All hugely useful skills to take into the workplace.

And actually Manchester Met is quite a good university with a triple accredited business school too. Anyone who goes there and doesn't work will fail, just like they would if they went to Oxbridge.

All this university prestige is a complete fallacy at undergraduate level anyway. Universities get their reputation from research, not their undergraduate degrees. For example, being in the Russell Group is all about being a sufficiently large university with the right research facilities (which is why excellent universities like Bath and Lancaster don't feature) which is pretty meaningless if you go and study a qualifying law degree or a BPS accredited Psychology degree that has to teach much the same content as every other university. Going to a Russell Group university for me meant being taught by people more interested in their research rather than their students.

I remember working on my graduate scheme with someone who was desperate to tell everyone he "went to St. Andrews, the best university in Scotland." I'm not sure what he was trying to prove other than that he was a bit of a knob. And he failed his early hurdle exams and was forced out 😂

This- 2 of mine got in on competency one hasn’t even graduated
The benefit of the school and particular university is the time spent there and friends made rather than some magic key afterwards.

Which companies are doing this?

I work in finance and see no evidence of it or have heard anything about it, and I have an eye on lots of recruitment so tend to hear about trends.

Past the first job, lots of recruiting is done via recommendation and network so I wouldn't worry too much.

Lots of graduate scheme recruitment for big companies or civil service involves doing tests or assessments so if he is really bright, he will do well at those and get the job.

If someone from Wolverhampton does better than him at the test then they deserve to get the job.

As a recruiter by the way, if I'm not operating institution blind, I am always drawn to OU candidates as to be able to do a degree in that way demonstrates fantastic skills in time management, resource, drive and initiative. All hugely useful skills to take into the workplace.

Thank god for common sense.
Once again employers employ people not the unis they went to.

*Lots of graduate scheme recruitment for big companies or civil service involves doing tests or assessments so if he is really bright, he will do well at those and get the job.

If someone from Wolverhampton does better than him at the test then they deserve to get the job.*

Exactly.

Yeah and all “science” is the same right. Molecular biology, quantum mechanics, organic chemistry - same, same. 🤔

Agree with last 2. As a manager, I have found that the people who got 1sts st top unis tend to be nightmare perfectionists who can't just cracked on and do a good enough job. Much prefer someone who has fitted a degree in amongst other things and can take a more pragmatic approach. I also have staff supporting me who went to RG unis when I got a 2:2 from OU! It doesn't matter

Agree, there are far woker universities than Oxford and Cambridge. Edinburgh for example, and Brighton.

Perhaps you could quote the ‘repeated’ posts claiming Oxbridge contains all the 'best' academic brains even, let alone all the best future workforce.

Not all companies do this though

Presumably you didn’t do either in research methods since you’ve glossed over all of the other variables that potentially contribute to differences in grades, such as subject, life circumstances, tutor variables, health situations, presentation of materials vs individual strengths of comprehension etc.

Actually what you're saying here is incredibly stupid to the point that I too much question how on earth you got a first in a science subject. You're basically expecting to go into and out of degrees without improving your knowledge or your mind?

Doing a science degree, getting a third and then doing another one and getting a first proves absolutely nothing because there's a glaring variable! When you went to the OU you had studied science at that level before!

And it rather begs the question why on earth you would go and study a degree at university again if you just expected to come out the same, with the same result?

Honestly, I read some stupid things sometimes, but this is going straight into my top 10.

The entire context of this thread, set probably inevitably by the contents of the OP, is that 'top universities' equal Oxbridge (occasionally Durham gets a name check, or the phrase 'other leading universities' or the evergreen 'RG universities). In reality, the fight back against institution blind recruiting tends to be a much wider one, very broadly drawn as old universities > new universities. This sits within the wider common MN trope that Oxbridge is the ambition of all the most able students.

But to meet your request, examples of Oxbridge exceptionalism (and these are drawn from posts from people on either side of the debate):

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,

My firm recruits university-blind and have people on the graduate scheme from many different universities. The ones from Oxbridge often stand out academically

I don’t think that many posters realise that Cambridge and Oxbridge produce fantastic graduates because they demand much more of students, particularly in humanities subjects

I think academic types choose Oxford and Cambridge for the challenge and the cache not the job prospects

nothing compares to the preparation provided by engaging with the Oxbridge tutorial system for three or four years

Oxford and Cambridge students tend to stand out anyway....

I am amused that the very posters who have said any old Uni is just as academically good and difficult as Oxbridge with justification being on how hard their courses were to them, and “yes it is” are now criticising posters who are using the same type of argument as unscientific, and really really stupid. I suppose it was ok to use anecdotes when it was arguing your opinion, but not when it’s arguing the opposite opinion, hey?

And meanwhile we are all ignoring the Uni league tables and Uni rankings like these arguably far more scientifically robust assessments compared to “my course was hard” “and it really is the same” mean absolutely nothing.

What are you saying? I responded to a post on quantum mechanics with a post on quantum mechanics and then a poster decided this was comparable to reading Romeo and Juliet.

Quantum mechanics= Quantum mechanics