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 think it depends on what your child wants to do in the future. Some careers require strong academic experience and many require the individual to progress to a phd. Plus, once at interview, the child can say they went to Cambridge and this may well prove to be a positive (or possibly negative).

I do agree with this actually. I have 2 degrees. My first was a 2:1, my second was a first. Guess which one was done at a "prestigious" university, was taught better, gave me more skills and I'm more proud of? If the recruiter is blind though (and tbh even if they aren't, a lot of ppl are clueless about how "good" universities or certain courses are) they wouldn't have a clue and would be more impressed by the second degree 🤷🏼‍♀️

Some parents just enjoy the 'status' I think.

You do realize there are companies that very specifically target Oxbridge eg commercial bar chambers. Look at their websites - not a single non-Oxbridge barrister. I think uni-blind selection is progressive and increasingly fair in an unequal and diverse society, but there will always be preference for some unis in certain industries.

The elite will have access to global opportunities, so your problem is a minor inconvenience.

It’s great that your kid worked hard and is going to the top universities but that isn’t everything. They sound like they have a good work ethic that will get them far. Most importantly is them being happy (lots of pressure can make some people unhappy). I personally went to a met and there’s a lot of snobbery around it. My experience was teaching was good and lecturers were just as involved as a Russell’s uni (I did my masters at one). I would have never got into Oxford or Cambridge as I’m not smart enough however I have a decent job because of my work ethic and passion. Don’t underestimate these! I think it also equals the plain for people.

I am with you on this one. It takes hard work and grit to achieve an offer from a top university. I think he should be rewarded for this with a top job. It gives an incentive to people to work hard. On the other hand, there are intelligent and capable pupils from blow income families (perhaps they had to work instead of dedicated time on studies or did not get the extra curricular opportunities to boost their appplicqtion) or who have mitigating circumstances that don't get to top universities. Although many top universities have good access schemes to combat this. There is still a way to go though song thjnk companies are recruiting blind to make sure they are not only selecting from an elite set of people. But I still see your point. Hebhas worked hard and is proud of his degree and should be able to show it off.

Not with The Smiths, New Order, The Stome Roses, the Hacienda etc. etc though.

Madchester.

Of course university should be taken account in the hiring process for many jobs. In the same way that degree outcome and GCSE/A level performance should. People love to throw out "oh but social mobility" without any regard for the contradictions. If you take away objective measures of performance you're left with woolly gauges like "fit" which for a grad will typically favour those from more privileged backgrounds anyway.

Note that this is very different from saying that the above are the be all and end all but they definitely should be part of the picture.

I meant more the links the Uni has with these companies. When we researched that’s what we found, not any advantage for permanent recruitment but internships etc. We were also told some companies only recruit people who went to certain uni’s so I think for some companies uni you went to does matter. Certainly not all and not my company (government)

I am with you on this one. It takes hard work and grit to achieve an offer from a top university. I think he should be rewarded for this with a top job The reward for hard work at school is to get into a top Uni not a top job. The challenge of getting a top job requires a lot more than just a high academic ability - those soft skills/people skills that no one was too bothered about when you applied to a top university become very important in quite a few jobs.

Exactly, although when I've made this point on other threads some PP who claim to be 'careers advise researchers' come along to debunk this, and insists that ALL universities put equal effort into their careers department.
never mind the fact that I work for a major employer and actually speak to graduates about what sort of support they've had.
Guess PP just swallow whatever they've been told by the universities.

I think most grad recruitment processes involve testing the candidate's ability rather than relying on just the university/school grades. Everyone sits the same tests, if the Oxbridge kids are better, they get the opportunity to prove it.

He's been rewarded with a place at a top University. His reward is a quality education in an incredible environment, excellent teaching, brilliant experiences.

For the top job he will need more than working hard as a teenager. He will need to show he has made the most of that education and if he has then that will shine through in the recruitment process and he will get the top job.

If he hasn't then no he doesn't deserve a top job simply because he got a place at that University.

I'm sure all careers dept would like to think that - but as an objective observer I have been shocked by how different their standards are.
We tried to advertise with one uni for an analyst position offering £40k a year, - we wanted a numerate degree with at least one year of work experience. They insisted we remove the degree requirement - (they thought it was discriminating against those who don't have a degree - this is an advert on a Uni jobs board) and the requirement to have any experience (age discrimination).
We withdrew and advertised with quite a few other Unis who gladly accepted our advert.

Of course university should be taken account in the hiring process for many jobs. In the same way that degree outcome and GCSE/A level performance should.

What makes you think that A level performance (let alone GCSEs) should be taken into account in the hiring process several years later? Achievement at A level is totally different from degree achievement as the playing field at school is far from level. After 3 or 4 years of study where students attend the same classes, have equal access to tutors and to resources such as libraries, that playing field has been levelled somewhat.

As I said upthread, most universities don't ask for your A level grades when applying for post-graduate degrees, so clearly they don't think they are particularly relevant…

@Horsetoday do you not ever think perhaps the earlier uni was right? My dh got 100% in an a level maths exam. He took further maths even though his school didn't offer it, they put it on specially for him in an ofsted inadequate school. He has no degree, works as an analyst now on way more than £40k. Some companies won't touch him because he has no degree but every company he's worked for (and these are very large companies) he's exceeded and been promoted more than others with degrees because he has a gift for maths that works in his favour in his job. You may have missed the chance to hire people like him through such discrimination that jobs like an analyst require a degree.

Of course some jobs and fields do require them but a lot of companies miss out on talent because they're too focussed on that one element and not necessarily for the right reasons.

I agree - we don't look at GCSE or A-level grades - it's ancient history. Seeing a CV that's heavily weighted to school achievements with very little to add afterwards would make me worry that the candidate was hot-housed by school/parents.

There is so much more to get from a uni than just a job offer at the end.

The professors and lecturers you meet. The quality of the learning and the understanding you get of topics. Plus enthusiasm. The quality of opportunities for placements, volunteer work, year in industry, department trips. Quality of facilities like labs. Different unis also will maybe also allow extra learning and being able to do modules in other subjects.
(I was fortunate to be able to study oceanography, along side my degree in astrophysics. The oceanography was amazing, the centre was world class and such interesting material, great fellow students from all over the world and very passionate and intelligent lecturers).

I would argue being at a good uni makes a huge difference to who you are by the end of it.
Filled with amazing opportunities, intelligent and open minded people leading the way in their fields, a more diverse mix of students (this is so great to meet people from all over the world and really learn about and from them).

Its not just about the piece of paper, it's about what you learn, how you learn, who you learn with, it forms you as a person and can really help you develop who you are.

Yes sure you can go to a less challenging uni and just party, but I would argue being around so many inspiring people and spending time following your passions rather than pushing self progress aside and just partying for a few years, would be a strong argument for a good uni.

My job offer didn't even depend on my degree in the end, but it doesn't mean that is really the case. My time at university formed who I am and how I am. And it's an asset to me, I can call on and how I feel about myself. This is worth more than me being valuable to one company. It's how I view myself and how my life went. And in turn this gives me confidence and happiness which inevitably gets carried with me subconsciously where ever I go. Whether it be job interviews or just general life :)

Requiring a degree is a quick and easy way to sift - we don't have the resources to interview everyone, recruiting is very time-consuming. Without a doubt degree I'm quite sure a bright numerate, confident candidate without a degree could do the job - but we're talking needle in a haystack - you have to start looking somewhere.

I wish I could give everyone a chance - it's not possible, by it's very nature a recruitment programme needs to discriminate against some groups or you'd never get through the candidates. The earlier University responded in a way that none of their grads got the opportunity. They seemed to want to run a generalist jobs board for every one degree or not - it's an interesting strategy to take - to devalue to product they are selling.

The point was the advert being on a university jobs board - if degrees aren't required then what does the uni exist for?

The majority of what students learn at uni is nothing compared to what they learn on the job so this is a silly comment. The only thing they do is create division, elitism and entitlement. As a graduate recruiter (ad tech) we do not care what university they went to, we care about the type of person they are, how willing they are to learn and how they’ll fit the team. Often we find students from ‘top’ universities do not have the empathy, people skills or respect for colleagues and rarely last beyond probation. I’d take a student with a 2:2 & empathy from Herts over a student with a 1st and a rod up their backside from Cambridge any day.

You're not unreasonable at all, its okay to be sad. But yeah thats just how it is, it is probably better to improve equality overall but there's nothing wrong with feeling your son has been hard done by.

Surely the correct comparison here is that we should look at the school an applicant got their GCSE and A levels from over what grades they got. If they went to a better school they must be a better candidate, right? Yes of course, someone at a bog standard comprehensive may have got an A* in maths but they won't have been taught as well or as deeply as a student at a top public school... and so on and so forth.

Yes of course there are differences here in that the exam boards are not the same as how degrees are awarded, but there is a principle here of allowing the reputation of an institution to substitute for the ability of a particular candidate. There is simply no justification for allowing such bias into a recruitment process - it is lazy if nothing else.

We live in demonstrably unequal society that had got more unequal over the last decade. Even the fate of Cambridge and Oxford graduates seems to be determined more by their upbringing prior to university than their time there - that is how unequal our society is. Many of those elitist jobs are not just filled by solely Oxbridge graduates, but Oxbridge graduates who have been to certain schools.

Luckily some companies are taking the enlightened view that actually getting the best candidates for their organisations needs a system that judges individuals on their own merits and recognises that unconscious bias needs tackling.

@dogsanddolphines no, that's a university acknowledging that not all jobs require a degree.

They're institutions of education. To educate people. Not to shut people out without a degree. I went to a top university with 1 to 1 tuition etc they also hire people without degrees. You can still respect a university that does this as it IS a discriminatory policy to only hire graduates in roles that don't require a degree. No one is not going to attend that university in future as a result of a non discriminatory job advert!!

No, the point of a 'university jobs board' is that it's only visible to students - a curated list of opportunities .
Otherwise, why bother? They could look on all the general websites, just like everyone else.

Also requiring a degree is not 'discriminatory', as it's a work-related characteristic and something in the employee's control. Discrimination relates to protected characteristics such as age, sex, race.

As @Horsetoday stated recruiting is time consuming, especially for entry-level roles. A degree is a useful metric, precisely because so many people have one! Even then the number of candidates to sift runs into hundreds.

You don't need to go to university to get a degree, many people get one later in life because they find that it places a ceiling on their career progression. Ultimately, no matter 'how good' someone is, unless they're a specialist in a very niche field or have an industry relevant qualification they'll very likely be competing against someone else with a degree, who will get hired instead. It's not about the individual, it's about the competition.