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?

Thanks to both of you. It's conservation and research but very few jobs about unfortunately

Of course, most of the loonies on here shouting how bad Cambridge is have zero chance of ever going nor did they have the intelligence to do so.

Life isn't going to offer the educational elite again so grasp it with both hands and to hell with those who presume to understand something which they actually cannot begin to comprehend.

What a vile thread @Newname576 All young people have challenges (I am a university lecturer with a disability btw) who attended ancient universities and no teach in a pre 92 in a very deprived area. Some of the young people who I teach who are extremely capable but because of economic ties or other issues couldn't leave home to go to uni, wouldn't get a look in without 'blind recruitment'. Your son's talents and fortitude should be why he gets a job, not the name of his alma mater.

And interestingly @ladykale I was listening to Professor Sharon Peacock on Desert Island Discs yesterday. She was formative in world leading research identifying Covid genome sequencing during Covid. She left school at 16 and worked in a local shop. Her route into science was very un prestigious and non traditional.

It is a mistake to not try and identify talent from non traditional sources as well as the more obvious ones. It would be bonkers not to.

If you believe having a university education is just about getting a job then you are probably right. But it's about so much more. The experience your DS will have at Cambridge will influence the rest of his life and the connections he makes will open doors for him. It will be a hugely challenging and exciting experience and you are doing him no favours by downplaying it.

Of course, most of the loonies on here shouting how bad Cambridge is have zero chance of ever going nor did they have the intelligence to do so.

It's not about "how bad" Cambridge is. Don't be daft.

It's just not the be all and end all. Employers have woken up to the idea that there is more talent around than just from the obvious sources.

It would be stupid to ignore it.

The degree helps you get the interview it does not get you the job. You have to get the job at the interview and that is all down to you. However if you don't get an interview they cannot be impressed by you so the degree/Uni maybe the difference after all. Cannot say have seen much evidence of "blind" recruitment.

Clearly Oxford isn't crap, what a daft thing to say.

Firstly, I got the grades for it but it wasn't an option. Secondly, this thread is basically saying that any degree that wasn't from an RG isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Lastly, I did joint honours. One subject was a science and as such my degree is BSc, one was a humanity.

I was a shoe in for an easy first with the science. It was the humanity subject that caused me to struggle. It really was like they had a massive chip on their shoulder that it wasn't a STEM subject so they graded very, very harshly. It became a running joke that you could write a masterpiece and you'd get 58%.

Brilliant students, much better than me were all in the same boat. I got a first because I did well in the science which was without doubt more challenging intellectually. One of my essays in the humanity was used as an exemplar. It was 62% so absolutely not a mind blowingly amazing grade.

So, non RG universities can make it harder to achieve in some cases!

Oh! And a professor in said humanity subject actually pulled a student in on suspicion of plagiarism for referencing a particular scholar. Apparently there was no way a first year could even know of this person, let alone understand them in context and REFERENCE THEM! I'd been on the same access course as the person he pulled in, we had learned about this scholar at level 3.

They really did think themselves a cut above and acted like it was physically painful to give decent grades.

I hate to break this to you but your son’s state school and socioeconomic background would have worked to his advantage in gaining his Uni place. You can’t benefit from that but then argue that it’s “unfair” that children who don’t attend Oxbridge will receive a similar “leg up”.

I’ve been responsible for Uni applications for my sixth-formers for years and I’ve seen kids with 4 A* rejected by top Uni’s because they have come from privileged backgrounds.

I also have a first class degree from an average Uni. A first is a first. Still a rarity and still likely to impress any employer.

I have a first from Oxbridge. I got my dream job via a university-blind hiring process five years ago. The guy who took me on recently told me he probably wouldn't have hired me if he'd seen my full CV, as he's worked with some awful Oxbridge types in the past.

Well done to your DD, and I’m sorry if this sounds pernickety but I just have to ask; why on earth, when talking about a specific individual, would you say ‘Oxbridge’ instead of just saying Oxford or Cambridge? You’re not the first person I’ve seen do this, and it baffles me.

Aargh! Another one, right above my post!!

I had a huge meltdown over the masters I started. I'd made a huge mistake and wanted to change. The admission dept were uhming and ahhhing until they asked my UG classification. I was accepted onto the course that I wanted to change to there and then. It does tend to make a bit of a difference in academia. In applying for jobs? Not so much, nobody asked me where or what classification.

The only ones that did even ask for proof wanted the transcripts, so they would have known but the job I actually do? Nobody asked.

Personally I'd be happy my child was getting a good education rather than looking forward to bragging rights. It's not about you...🙄

I can remember one thing very clearly from my degree - that there was absolutely no way I could afford the textbooks and that there would only be one copy of a few of them in the library that disappeared at the start of the term. How were students supposed to do the wider reading?

I’ve since studied online at postgrad level and the internet really has changed this issue for the good. Now, these articles, pdfs, books are available to read. It makes such a difference.

I say it in here so as to share less info, less identifying - I don’t think which matters much in the context I use it in. I wouldn’t say which company I worked for or where I lived either.

There are some companies that will only recruit from red brick institutions. consulting is a key one! If he's interested in interning in procurement, let me know, we'd be happy to interview him!

Sorry you can't buy your way in anymore. I'll weep for you.

(They've clearly learned from this whole government of supposedly highly and privately educated bumbling morons)

What do you mean covered a lot more? Do you not think there are common standards?

I have been in a professional occupation for about thirty years now and have come across many people with an Oxbridge education, I have truly never thought that they had a better degree, I have always thought they must have had good A levels though. I have also never really seen any correlation either way between Oxbridge / non Oxbridge and work performance.

People will always have an unconscious bias, so I doubt you child will not miss out on the kudos and positive associations that comes with going to Cambridge. I have no doubt she has worked extremely hard to get there and very well done to her.

However the general consensus around Oxbridge is being influenced increasingly by the acknowledgement of privilege, some will have a negative perspective towards Oxbridge graduates on this basis. Of course this must feel really unfair if your daughter is not one of those who have benefited from the same privilege others have!

University places are so sought after that many are of the opinion that league tables etc. carry less weight now as allocations can seem pretty arbitrary when there are 30 plus applicants for a single place, in a very flawed UCAS system.

Students are increasingly taking into consideration other factors beside league tables. Fees are extortionate and the cost of living is very high, so many will chose local universities to rescue their costs for example, some will chose universities with particular social or sports opportunities etc.

Some degrees translate directly to careers eg nursing or architecture, but there are many (perhaps the majority) which don't have a direct career path and therefore having a degree doesn't necessary prepare a graduate for a specific job as much as actual work experience. Many employers will favour a candidate with work experience over someone with a 'better' degree.

The Oxbridge experience is certainly quite unique so this is something to be considered. It's also not for everyone. There is nothing wrong with wanting to go to a metropolitan if the experience appeals, bright and gifted people tend to do well regardless.

What do you mean covered a lot more?*
Do you not think there are common standards?
Not Oxbridge, but I compare the breadth and depth of knowledge my PGCE gave me compared with some of the lower ranked PGCE providers and it's eye opening.

We were given a much broader academic grounding in educational theory and encouraged to critique and evaluate policy. Now a lot of trainees I've worked with seem to be drilled in the 'what' of the classroom (eg following the prescribed PowerPoints, what to say to open a lesson) and don't have much on the how and the why. There's a noticeable absence of why on a policy, educational pedagogy, and big picture level.

On reflection some of the content we covered didn't seem relevant as a new teacher, but I think it made me a better teacher long term.

I said "Oxbridge" because I don't want to give away any more personal information on here than is relevant to the topic. :-)

How bizarre it’s like it not mattering where you worked before ! Some companies get the values of degrees and where they are from some don’t. I work somewhere most people have a degree and quite a few from top universities but you can tell those type of graduates, I have to be honest they are all pretty impressive (though can be annoying 🤣) I think everyone accepts that getting a degree doesn’t mean that you suddenly earn mega money but it should count and in many fields employers it does

It depends what degree I think. For example, I work in the psychology field my degree is from a well ranked uni but not oxbridge my masters is not. Both however are accredited. That means they both cover the necessary information for the job that I do no matter what uni I did it at. Experience is valued far more in this field because its a field working with people and skills that can't really be taught but developed through actual work. I know when I got my assistant psyc job back in the day that I beat out someone from Cambridge and my manager said it was because all the extra knowledge just wasn't necessary, they knew I had an accredited degree so they knew I had the knowledge needed and my experience was far superior.