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?

Psychology is so oversubscribed now. And you need to go way further than undergrad to really ever work in the field. I consider it more of an interest degree. It's fascinating for a lot of people (who then shit themselves when they are told about stats 😅).

I got very lucky that I took it no further than UG, did postgrad in something vaguely psychological and do work in the area. But it really was pure dumb luck.

The salary for an assistant psychologist is pitiful. I'm not one btw, it's barely a living wage.

I've just gone back to an assistant psyc job after doing my masters and the salary is 29,000 which I don't think is too bad really. Depends what company you're working for i guess

Last time I saw an assistant psychologist job it was around the 22k mark.

Do companies declare in their job vacancies that they are doing blind recruitment ?

I have never seen a job advert declaring this ?

Many of the large corporate firms recruiting for graduate roles will refer to blind recruitment in details of their process. There isn’t anywhere on the application form to include details of your school or Uni. I think the Civil Service does the same for some roles.

@TeaLeafTruth8532 You would know because you would be told to omit that information from the application and you often have to sign to state you have done so. Then, if you include the information, you wouldn’t pass the sift as you have failed to follow instructions.

If you say so 😂

@LizzieVereker i guess your degree isn’t from oxbridge.

'But all degrees aren’t equal @NeverDropYourMooncup - someone who gets a 1st from Cambridge has covered a lot more than the equivalent degree from uni of Hertfordshire!'

A lot more how? This kind of snobbery is why blind recruitment is a thing for many companies... I hear Harvard or Cambridge or Princeton or St Andrews and the first thing that spring to mind is 'rich parents, privileged kid' not 'cleverer' than anyone else, not a harder worker, not more 'rounded' in any way. Just over privileged. And they certainly don't always make the better workers.

@Poopoolittlekitten

thats the first thing you hear ‘privileged kid’?

Many at third level in this country are privileged but not all. To write off all students from those universities you mention is crazy

'thats the first thing you hear ‘privileged kid’?'

Yes. Rich kids go to Harvard and Oxbridge. Poor kids generally, regardless of how bright they are, do not.

$90 k a year to go to an Ivy League University, Oxbridge - £10k fees, plus accommodation in 2 of the most expensive towns, and they'll tell you the courses are ' too rigorous' to do anything other than study ( ie hold down a job too), and then throw in the cost of living, and the extras, and that's not taking into account the tutors and money on extra curriculars to have a 'rounded' CV to get into Oxbridge at all. Oh, and the high ( by percentage) number of privately educated students getting in, who's parents ave quite literally spent 10s of 1000's of pounds, and more, already.
So yes, it's statistically okay to think that rich kids goes to these Universities, because rich kids do. Do you think a WC child with Prince William's school results would have got the place at St Andrew's that he did? Not in a million years, even if they could have afforded it somehow.

In think PooPoolittlekitten is suffering from an excess of inverted snobbery!

$90 k a year to go to an Ivy League

Scholarships

University, Oxbridge - £10k fees,

same at all 3 Rd level institutions in UK

plus accommodation in 2 of the most expensive towns,

Oxford offer accommodation to all first years in college halls heavily subsidised with meals also heavily subsidised plus onsite cafes ( also heavily subsidised). it’s possible to live for less there then at other universities. Plus wealthy colleges like St Johns can offer additional funds once in

and they'll tell you the courses are ' too rigorous' to do anything other than study ( ie hold down a job too),

all good institutions tell you this and all students ignore it

and then throw in the cost of living,

everywhere

and the extras,

what extras?

and that's not taking into account the tutors

?

and money on extra curriculars to have a 'rounded' CV to get into Oxbridge at all.

An idea sold by private providers and bought by those trying to give extra advantage to their children. Has no bearing whatsoever on admissions tutors ( do you really think a physicist would care about sporting achievements/duke of Edinburgh/violin grades when interviewing an 18 yr old?

Oh, and the high ( by percentage) number of privately educated students getting in,

disproportionate yes, absolutely but not a majority

who's parents ave quite literally spent 10s of 1000's of pounds, and more, already.

Their money

So yes, it's statistically okay to think that rich kids goes to these Universities, because rich kids do.

Do you think a WC child with Prince William's school results would have got the place at St Andrew's that he did?

With new contextual offers it’s possible but I don’t know PW’s grade but he is an anomaly

Not in a million years, even if they could have afforded it somehow.

I did. I wasn’t alone. I was there for a postgrad not an undergrad and it was the PGCE. I met several people there from Northern w/c backgrounds who had completed degrees there. This was a long time ago. Since then, a lot has changed.

Its really important when talking about places like this that we deal with facts because there is so much myth about these places but they are publicly funded ( with also private contributions) so have to be open to all ( based on grades and ability) and are our internationally recognised universities - we should be behind them. They are not the places they are being depicted as - full of Tory like /aristo/Eton types/ Bullingdon club - that is a myth ( that certain people liked to perpetuate back in the 80s or the earlier Brideshead revisited effete intellectual types. They are typically full of the quite serious, nerdy, studious types who work - they really do study hard ( like most serious students wherever they are).

I only replied to your comment because I think it’s really important that if a parent on here from a low income/disadvantaged background has a child with the ability they look for at these universities then it is important they know that there are ways around the costs, and that there is space there for them. They have a right to it and not to take it up is exactly how these institutions do become dominated by the idea of a type that some employers then look for - but it is much, much more than that.

What background the students come from and how much help they have had to get the top grades is irrelevant. Once there they will pushed more and expected to study to a deeper level. All university degrees are different, there is no outside adjudicator.

I think it's the right thing to do, it can open doors for students who haven't come from a background that enables going to such universities, and previously might not have been given a chance.

It will level the playing field and tbh some of my best staff don't even have degrees but years of experience has taken them to the top.

While we are dealing with facts, Harvard considers applications without reference to family income. When an undergraduate applicant from anywhere in the world with a family income of less than USD 100,000 is admitted, the family does not pay a cent and no loan is offered. Harvard pays all fees. (A decent campus job for a few hours employment per week during term time may be required, but student employment is normal in America.)

A few other leading private American universities run similar programmes.

Do you think a WC child with Prince William's school results would have got the place at St Andrew's that he did? Not in a million years, even if they could have afforded it somehow.

St Andrews is nothing special, it's just beloved by the private school crowd because the town is pretty. Just checked my subject (biochemistry) and both Glasgow and Edinburgh require much better Higher results, St Andrews has the same entry requirements as Aberdeen and Dundee.

One of my siblings went to St Andrew's at the same time as William.

If I recall, he did a geography degree which is well known there as a duffer's degree when it involves the nobility.

St Andrews is very good for subjects like Ancient History, History, Archaelogy etc.. Not so good for science-based subjects.

St Andrews' main attraction as a place of education for the heir to the throne is that it is geographically well-suited to be reasonably secure and well-guarded. In the same way that it was a lot easier to ensure security at Eton than it would be at a typical inner-city comprehensive secondary, it would have been a lot easier for the security detail to cover the prince safely in St Andrews than it would have been at a big redbrick university somewhere like Manchester

I think it's very good gor biology

It's a great idea to avoid 'nepotistic' hiring of candidates. My manager hired an Oxbridge candidate for this reason and the employee was utterly woeful and was managed out after 6 months. Graduating from Oxbridge is no guarantee of being a great employee.

Most Oxbridge candidates already have an advantage in life by being born intelligent, having supportive parents and the right conditions to succeed. I wouldn't worry about your child. Sounds like your DS has all of these.

The problem I’m seeing with ‘blind’ university cvs is that many disadvantaged students receive their university places with contextual offers. If the university name is omitted and companies rely only on A level grades to differentiate most academic achievement within the very broad university categories, (eg 2:1), then thesr candidates miss out the most as only A level grades on cvs are giving a clue as to their academic ability. I think if most of us are honest with ourselves, we would accept that not all 2:1s or 1st are equal. That’s largely why there is competition for places. Also, there appears to be some evidence that the move is counter productive. Companies are no longer aiming to fill ‘quotas’ formal or not. The presumed positive outcome is not as straight forward as it first appears. Agreed, academic ability definitely doesn’t always mean best candidate, but think it is only fair that success in this field be should be shown as clearly as possible just like other skills. Companies with the best intent need to be careful not to jump onto the bandwagon.

I work in one of the professions
and occasionally get involved in recruiting graduates. We have minimum academic criteria, and applications are filtered for that before they reach me, so I don’t even look at their marks when shortlisting. All I’m bothered about is a demonstrable interest in the work, experience to date, and, ultimately, how well they interview. The academics are a given.

Yes, it’s the initials screening that is the problem with blind recruiting