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?

So - none.

University league tables include factors that consider course quality but also things like employability that might be based on recruiter bias. So they're scientific, but only to a point.

Besides which, that is not the argument I'm making at all. I would actually claim something closer to "you can't really prove which university is more academic and arguing about it will leave you going round and round in circles."

I would then finish by pointing out that how academic someone is can be quite a poor indicator of what they are like in the workplace.

I think going to a top university is a fantastic experience for someone but anyone who thinks it should be a meal ticket for life or who prioritises what they did aged 18-21 rather than their last project needs to get a grip.

You know what? I'm not at all surprised that you're very proud and rightly so.

But you're letting that pride blinker you.

Let's see if he can even hack it yet, before worrying about blind recruitment.

You're literally looking down your nose at people who achieved at 'lesser' universities and wonder why we're not all gnashing our teeth in empathy.

Those who have ALREADY done it.

It is ridiculous to think that spending 3 years studying a period of history or physics or English literature somehow makes you a more valuable candidate for most jobs than someone who has spent the same 3 years working or committing to some endeavour. It's become so skewed. I say this as someone with a masters degree, an Oxford grad dh and 2 dc who are graduates. The older I get the more ridiculous I find the whole thing. 3 years from 18-21 is so insignificant over a lifetime of experience

I've not done an OU degree but their classification boundaries are way higher. A first is 80%

Putting people down because you've got it into your head that an Oxford education should automatically mean that doors are opened is going to piss people off.

You're basically saying that no matter what their achievements, they'll never be as good as those who went to Oxford. That's absolute bullshit.

@bottleofbeer the grade boundaries are different but they are marked differently, in the OU they try to use all the marks including up to 100%, whereas in trad unis the marks tend to cluster between 40-75%. This does not mean that in the OU it's harder to get a first, it means they have a different marking scheme.

Highdays, I didn't know that!

Thanks for the explanation because I have often wondered! 🙂

@Mirabai relying on sophistry?

I haven’t read the whole thread, but I can see why you’re upset. A good undergraduate honours degree from Cambridge will have involved and required hell of a lot more than the equivalent from a low ranking uni (I found there was less difference at postgrad). I guess you can just take comfort in the additional skills your son will develop alongside to achieve this, which will hopefully set him apart from others at interview.

Can't you just be pleased for him? He has done so well. A University education is so much more than a gateway to a job.

I think you're right to be upset about this.

I see above that your family is underprivileged. Wait until he's got the degree and everyone hates him for being an "elitist bastard". That really sucks!

A job should be given on merit and suitability, not which university someone went to. Just look at the current crop of useless MP's with Oxbridge educations 🙄 You are rightly proud of your son, but your attitude is pretty snobbish.

I havent heard of this at all in London

Dont go on tittle tattle / tik tok gossip for such a big decision!

I agree with you. Managers Using Oxbridge 1sts as an umbrella to trick companies into taking underqualified arts grads into STEM (particularly data) grad schemes roles is one of the reasons why we have a skills shortage in the UK.

Wait people hire arts grads into numerical roles?

This. Just being there is an amazing experience, no matter what happens afterwards.

Yea, some people don't like it but the majority do. It's a wonderful experience. I still count it as one of the happiest times of my life and I left nearly 25 years ago.

What university someone went to is heavily dependent on their life between 16 and 18. So much can happen at this age to mean that someone doesn’t get the GCSEs and A levels which represent their full academic potential. A lot of it often not really to do with the person themselves but eg unstable or abusive home, caring for family, housing problems etc etc. Or something major happening - illness, mental health crisis, pregnancy. I find it really weird that when someone manages to get through these circumstances, get to university on a lower tariff, and then excel at degree level - that this is somehow seen as an ‘easier’ route.

Of course some people get in on the same lower tariff and had genuinely reached their potential earlier in their education, and continue to perform at an average level.

The reason that new universities have lower entry criteria (and the OU has none) is because it’s not possible tell which potential students are which- but these courses give a chance to the first group to reach their potential. This first group also often have a huge amount to offer employers - and are often overlooked because of the kind of snobbery shown on this thread by a lot of people.

He's not even started yet. Don't put so much pressure on him to make it all the way through. Getting in is an achievement but different students require different experiences.

Your daughter is being needlessly dismissive of Man Met. In some courses it has the best in the country. Most Universities will have something in their portfolio that is either the best or up there, even ones you might look down on.

Well done to your son, I am sure if he succeeds there he will be fine the other side!

No, accuracy.

Ok- so this thread has got far too long to read the full thread- sorry. However, mumsnet's obsession with Russell Group Uni is totally out of proportion to real life. And I have attended 2 (I have since learnt) because I am fortunate to be old enough when that was possible due to not having to consider the costs (£3000 fees brought in when I went the second time) and this bollox did not seem to exist. I liked the course, I liked the Uni and the cities they were in. Parents were vaguely proud (dad was a Durham and Oxford alumni) but was just left to get in with it.

And then went to Uni a third time (I know) - not an ex poly, but somewhere far down the list of prestigious universities but very highly regarded for my course- which has now been my career for many years. It was also highly regarded such as pharmacy, dentistry etc. and has been world leaders in a particularly niche area for decades. It is an area with many home students for complex reasons but was exceptional and my best experience by far.

As an undergraduate, many Russel group ratings are pointless unless your future is academia, politics or a way into a few select careers which are more about who you know rather than what you know (which also covers politics really). There is huge snobbery around red brick universities and ex polytechnics but in many areas they are considered far superior in providing courses that prepare their students for the industry they want to work in. This is because they always have provided these courses and have the right lecurers, work placements and connections.

I think a lot of people, in various professions, will know some buffoon not fit for the job but has somehow worked their way in due to out-dated concepts. Going to a certain university does not mean they are 'top drawer', many have learnt unshakable confidence through their schooling/uni which means in interview they over deliver or in some industries they just know the right people. Absolutely the recruitment process should be 'university blind', alongside age, race, sex etc. There has been so much research for so long into the bias shown in job selection it is crazy that this is still something people object to. There is no reason someone who has been to elite university would not get a job if they meet the criteria and the most suitable person for the job. Expecting to be favoured a job because you went to a certain university.....

👏

Race and sex blind I agree with. But like age blind for graduate roles? Like do we want 40 year olds applying for graduate schemes?

If they're graduates, why don't you?

Is there any reason why you say this?

After all, you're suggesting that it is undesirable for any woman who has, after 20 years of a controlling or financially abusive marriage, caring for children, coping with ill health or disability, working in a low paid role, finally been able to study (whether full time or through somewhere like the Open University) to be treated on the same basis as anybody else who has gained the equivalent qualifications.

Would you really prefer them to stay in their lane and stick to the job on Reception/tills/cleaning rather than use their intellect and dedication to get the job that reflects their true ability?

I don’t see why not,@eggsbenedict23 Their maturity is often a useful asset to the workplace.

Can someone help here: is it even legal to discriminate on the basis of age?