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?

With respect, I don’t think you know what an ‘unconditional offer’ is. It isn’t ‘unconditional’ if he already has the grades (which are genuinely fantastic). They were the condition, and he has met them.

‘Unconditional offers’ are so rare as to be virtual urban legends (I know of only one in real life) and mean that the admissions tutors were so impressed by the candidate that they either gave a genuinely unconditional offer with no grade requirements, or an offer so low (usually two Es) as to be de facto unconditional.

Thats my point. Easy courses = Easy firsts. You can be mediocre and get a first from a mediocre Uni. No greatness necessary.

What would you rather have let's ask the audience. A 2.1 from Cambridge or a 1st from Bristol?

My boss went to the University of Hertfordshire. I went to Cambridge. She’s younger (and far more effective) than me.

OP, I recruited for the Civil Service Fast Stream for years, which is institution blind. As a PP has just said, quite often it’s obvious when a candidate is Oxbridge from the experience they put forward in the competency application, but I usually found the highest scoring people were able to clearly articulate how a Saturday job at Tesco had developed their skills, rather than someone who had been on the Union Society Committee.

I now recruit at a Big Four. There are some very out of date ideas on here about how we go about that. We have a presence at a lot of universities, and are putting a lot of effort into outreach. Certainly Manchester Met has been one of them recently! We’ve also started up a recruitment stream straight from A levels.

Even before blind recruitment I paid a lot more attention to how well a candidate managed to explain their skills and aptitude than either their university or degree class. Quite often someone’s university choice is about more than their ability. Increasingly people are choosing to study near home for financial reasons. They may be studying part time or have caring responsibilities. They may have gone to a school where aspirations for leavers were low and flourished at university.

Hopefully your son will have a fantastic time at university, and be well equipped to apply for a job at the end on his own merits.

Probably there are some employers who want a particular type of person so will pick e.g. oxbridge/durham

And others recruiting for particular skills so willknow which universities offer good courses in one particular subject area.

Beyond that I expect it's down to snobbery and prejudice to an extent, with traditional subjects from redbrick universites more highly valued.

Surely anyone would want to go to the "best" place for their subject though? How frustrating if you are bright and hard working but end up somewhere that all the other students are struggling with the basics and the standards are poor and everyone gets good grade regardless.. let's face it you can get drunk and party even at oxbridge so that aspect is irrelevant. I don't see why anyone would choose Manchester Met over Cambridge for the enjoyment of the university experience.

I don't think you should worry about it. The skills you get out of a degree from Cambridge, the social networks, the fab time you will have etc are its real value. When hiring I've come across absolutely unsuitable candidates from Oxford/Cambridge and excellent candidates from other universities. I don't think also for most jobs what you learnt at uni matters, it's about your transferable skills. People that are really committed to the university experience, to self study, to testing themselves in different ways, will always interview better for a job than those who just dossed about at uni. Cambridge should push your son to be in tje former category.

I think for some jobs it makes sense, and for others it's very odd. There are lots of great unis with good career-oriented jobs and links with industry but there's a heck of a lot with really much lower academic standards, and getting a first there won't be the same. I don't care about it though, as in feel aggrieved, just think it's an odd policy. Blinding sex and age and name makes much more sense. Everything else I would want to know where it was from as that's a form of legitimacy for those qualifications.

I recruit PhDs and research fellows occasionally, and I'm not as influenced by the UG university as you might think. What I am looking for is usually that either the UG or Masters or something is done somewhere solid and academic, second I'm looking for consistency, so is this student or applicant getting consistently high grades across multiple courses and levels (e.g. do they get a First and a Distinction from two different places), and finally I'm looking for high awareness of what it takes to succeed, do they take feedback, do they have an excellent proposal. Ideally, if it's a PhD it's great to work with them beforehand on the proposal so that you get a sense of if they have the right skills and aptitude.

I'm not snobby about uni, but I think it's part of an overall picture, it seems odd to take it out as if there genuinely was some overall standard measurement across 150 odd institutions, but that's on them I guess, and it will help other inequalities. We have a table to make equivalents for international students as it's really hard to read their marks and know what percentile of achievement they are in, for example.

😂👌

Going to Cambridge, just so you can say “I went to Cambridge”, is not the right reason to go to Cambridge.

I went to Oxbridge though, and I never came out with any great social networks at all, I had individual nice friends I've kept but it hasn't done me any favours. That type of social capital is not acquired from eating in the same hall as wealthy or well-connected people if you are not one of them.

Underwater basket weaving sounds pretty difficult to be fair. I'd be impressed with that.🧑🏽‍🎓

Great post.

@Solonge · Today 20:06
wow....so Oxbridge uni's take the vast majority of their students from private schools

No, they do not.

https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/03/11/state-school-admissions-are-rising-at-oxford-and-cambridge

In 2022 the proportion of places offered to state-school students was 68% at Oxford; 72.5% at Cambridge.

What subject is OP's son studying?

If you want to be an astronaut, it’s perfect training. (It’s an actual NASA training course).

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!

I'd have to disagree with this comment...

If the degrees are equivalent, then there is no saying that Cambridge will have covered more in terms of breadth or depth .

They may different modules and specialisms in some areas but they are still an undergrad course in the same field.

Eg a qualifying law degree from Oxbridge and a qualifying law degree from another "lesser" uni is still a qualifying law degree and will have broadly covered an equivalent range of modules

The key difference is that in some cases, particularly areas such as law, the magic circle firms are still very biased in their recruiting in favour of Oxbridge and Durham.

Very much where you went rather than what you learned and not necessarily resulting in the best applicant getting the job...

But that doesn’t mean they’re smarter or the students have learned the material. Or even understand it.

I was an emancipated child. My parents fucked off and abandoned me at 16 and I had to pay my own way through uni. I was oxbridge material (AAAA for a level. I did 4). But my circumstance meant I could never afford to go anywhere other than the uni I went to even with the grants.

does that mean I should be shoved down because someone was luckier to have a parent that cared for them? Because that’s what Oxbridge type unis require. Support from family be it emotional and/or financial for them to succeed. I didn’t have that.
I had to choose a cheaper area to live, that had a good number of easy access jobs, where I could afford a place within walking distance of the uni, that I could fully self fund my course without being burnt out. Why should I be penalised for that?

you forget all the barriers other people have to learning despite being as smart or smarter than your very fortunate cared for son.

my own DC will never make it to uni because of circumstance (late ADHD/ASD diagnosis) meant they fucked up schooling despite being incredibly able. My DC was predicted 8s for GCSE and will be lucky to scrape some 4s.

why should a failure by outside sources permanently be a barrier for them? my DC should have the chance to prove themselves as able as they are, as should I, without someone snobbily looking at our colleges and unis making sweeping judgements that they’re less good and therefore we’re less capable.

Awesome. Can you also do %’s of %’s to see what that represents given how many children are at state school vs independents.

Sounds like a university which specialises in Horticultural Studies. 😁

I’d agree with this from my own experience (now 30 years out of date). The networks came from the schools people had attended, not going to Oxbridge. Birds of a feather!

I meant to say what it did give me was academic achievement and analytic skills from all those tutor sessions which are great for my career choice, though. Just not any type of advantageous social network, in fact, as a very common non-grammar/private school person in the late 80's, I stuck out like a sore thumb! I hope that's changed a bit.

But how many of these are Grammar Schools?

Whats a TRA? Thanks

There are lots of great unis with good career-oriented jobs and links with industry but there's a heck of a lot with really much lower academic standards, and getting a first there won't be the same. I don't care about it though, as in feel aggrieved, just think it's an odd policy. Blinding sex and age and name makes much more sense. Everything else I would want to know where it was from as that's a form of legitimacy for those qualifications.

That sums it up for me. I’m not upset. The companies that do this may hire a few positions this way if they are already successful and can take the hit. It’s not something that would be a good blanket hiring policy.

What's wrong with Grammar schools?