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?

We recruit name, institution and employer blind. When it first came in one of the applications I sifted included a competence which began, When I organised the May Ball…..

@Solange

you need to read that article really carefully. It is not saying what you think it is saying. It is being very clever in insinuating something that it’s own research does not back up.

There are plenty of companies that actively avoid people who have been to Oxbridge and people who got firsts as they find them too academic.

The ads I see utilising this are usually for jobs requiring 5-10 years of experience.

Aka, what you did in the last 5-10 years is more important than the university choice you could manage/made at 18.

That's great - removes bias from what is by then a very outdated and irrelevant piece of information.

(I know excellent Oxbridge grads, and I know rather mediocre ones who dwell upon where they went at 18 without bothering to develop themselves since.)

Success in life is about the people you meet and the opportunities you take. Good exam results from a "good" university might put you on the right path but they are not the be all and end all.

Because too many people think the name of the university is the most important thing when actually it's the course. No-one cares that dc will go to Cambridge or Oxford. The only people who care are the parents because of the flex.

All degrees are not equal but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Oxbridge are the best universities to go to. That instead is dependent on the degree you want to do. The best university for construction related degrees was a few years ago (2017) Sheffield Hallam followed by Edinburgh Napier.

what the hell is the point of going to a top Uni if no one will know about it!

😂😂

Don’t worry, if your son does go to Cambridge he’ll tell them in the first 2 minutes at the interview.

Just put rowing in the list of interests and hobbies on the CV and drop a bit of Latin in and you'll be given a funny handshake and welcomed into the senior management suits within 6 months.

And during his time there it will be up to him to make the most of the amazing experience, to develop personal skills, contacts, interests, all of which will stand him in better stead for his whole life, in every job he undertakes. Do you honestly think that merely being accepted into a prestigious institution is going to make him a better person, a better communicator, a better work colleague and is going entitle him to greater consideration than other people for the rest of his working life?

My brother has a degree from Cambridge (he was at Queen's College and loved it!) and it has served him VERY well in his career. He has been on 100K+ practically straight out of uni. I don't think many companies are that blind 😂 Well done to your son!

@solange this might not help the narrative you seem to want to promote but it does present the srtte - private split going back over a number of academic years.

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/performance-indicators/widening-participation/table-t1

The caveat of course is that not all state schools are equal - we have academic selectivity and house price selectivity.

Congratulations to your child! That’s wonderful for them.

Some companies (not sure which - I don’t know enough about it admittedly) hire mainly from Oxbridge and a select few Russell Group universities which has an impact upon diversity. Yes, thankfully these universities are doing some work to make their intake more diverse yet certain universities still have a lot of privately educated students (eg I think perhaps Bristol does/did off the top of my head?). Also, teacher here. The trainee I was most excited to mentor (as an Oxbridge grad) turned out to be the worst teacher I’ve ever worked with, including in terms of work ethic and professionalism.

The majority....I should hope they do take the majority of their pupils from state schools! if you compare the number of state school pupils compared to private. Pupils in state schools in 2022 were approx 7,859,000, The number of pupils in private schools was less than 615,000. So even if Oxbridge are taking 'over half' of their students from state schools I assume even you see there is a rather large discrepancy.

You’ve obviously done a ton of research and yes one barrier is getting people to apply but that’s not the only barrier and many of those other ones are institutional.

Family member lives in a deprived postcode in the North. Straights A*s at GCSE and A Level and did 4 full A Levels which didn’t include general studies. Sportsman, DofE and generally a well-rounded individual (I interview a lot of people and know the difference). Didn’t even get an interview. Has gone on to get a masters elsewhere. I have a friend whose daughter is the same - no interview. So people from those backgrounds ARE applying and I have anecdata of maybe 7 with the same story. Imagine how hard it’s been to go to a really average comp and get straight As, yet apparently the criteria is adjusted to accommodate.

A top university is supposed to recruit the best students - of course it’s elitist. That’s the whole point!

Light touch paper and retire OP?

smacks of some lazy journalism

Really? Been to both, and that's a resounding 'no' from me.

@Solonge You are the person who originally insisted that Oxbridge was admitting a majority of private school applicants!

Oxbridge uni's take the vast majority of their students from private schools

This is what you said. I'm just pointing out that isn't right because I think it's important for those considering applying to know what the real picture is. These threads come up on google searches etc. Important to be accurate.

I am sure Oxbridge has a long way to go before it is truly equitable in admissions. But throwing around inaccurate hyperbole doesn't help anyone.

Academic brilliance is absolutely not a yardstick of how well a person will do outside the world of academia.

It's just not. So yes, interview applicants who meet the criteria and hire on the basis of their interview performance.

But do they actually recruit the best students or those they think are the best fit for their institution?

The first is merit; the second potential elitism.

My niece went to Oxford and wanted to get a job related to writing. However, she didn’t have any practical experience, such as writing for university magazines etc. My sil thought that Oxford would give her a passport to a good job. Not so.

How rude, and narrow minded.

Speaking as a Man Met law graduate who is now a senior associate at a top international law firm, I am pleased I managed to crawl in through the cracks 😏

I am actively involved in interviewing candidates for our summer vacation placements and training contracts and we blind recruit - it's much fairer and the candidates who can demonstrate the necessary skills are the ones who are shortlisted. We have to turn away highly qualified individuals as the quality of candidates is so high and we don't have enough places. It's not about the university at all. Having seen these kids in action down the line, a big name university makes no difference to the calibre of the lawyer or their ability to do the job.

"When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"