To Think that Grad & Apprenticeships are now only for Diversity Candidates

[reallyreallycrazy]

Slight hyperbole but not far off.

Yes, of course I suppose my DS should be appreciative of his 'white privilege' (I do detest the term though), but he's been applying to over 100 x spring & summer internships and apprenticeships.

Invariably, he finds that lots of programmes are only open to black/female/social mobility/ND candidates. In one recent case - a global consultancy - there were NO openings for anyone outside of these categories.

And today, on LinkedIn, he forwarded me several links from leading banks reaching out about apprenticeships etc. In most photos, you might be lucky to spot 1-2 white males and in the video of one, there were not a single white male (or female for that matter).

I get that these firms need to do outreach to disadvantaged groups but if you look at the population level percentage of the various group categories, this really has swung too far the other way.

I get that many of these organisations have years to catch up with diversity hires but to try to rebalance in such an aggressive way and in a short space of time, makes it very difficult for young, white males (unless they have qualified for 'free school meals') to get a foot in the door which is especially tough in an incredibly tough grad market as it is.

You can roll your eyes, but it’s called “diversity internships”.

It sounds like you're not very good at your job if you're consistently hiring underperformers.

And your workplace sounds awful if people are "always referred to as diversity hires".

In my first job after graduating (I am early 30s, so not that long ago), I was referred to as the "token female hire" by the other (white male) new starters on the same scheme. I outperformed them all in that role and am considerably more senior than they are now. I may well have been hired to meet some sort of gender quota, but I was absolutely deserving of the job.

I work for a big international bank. It’s not my company, so it’s a bit dumb to say I can’t be very good at my job. The point I am making is that we are seeing people who would never be selected if it wasn’t for being a “diversity candidate”. My workplace probably runs one of the more prestigious grad schemes in the country, so yes it’s really obvious that people are getting opportunities they wouldn’t otherwise have had. So yes I very much agree ei the OP here.

I’m of the view that someone has to suffer for us to achieve equality. Because privileged white men have taken what wasn’t theirs, and sharing some of it back means they lose it. That doesn’t mean it was ever legitimately theirs though.

eh?

In 1971 the UK was 97.5% white. Before that, it would have been 99.99% white. The guilds, enlightenment, the industrial revolution, etc. where white men. White men developed the universities, the banks, the industries. I am glad the suffragettes fought to give women an opportunity to participate, but it is ridiculous to say that “white men took what wasn’t theirs.” They created this stuff, they didn’t “take it,” and their grandsons deserve a fair crack.

The pictures are showing what they want the public to see. They want to attract a diverse workforce so they're not going to show as it currently is on the inside. These people are specifically picked to be the face of whatever corporate material it is they need it for. The surprise is, when you get in, if you get in, its mostly white males and then females so you've actually got the wrong end of the stick in this. If you want the truth look into ethnicity/diversity stats for these top companies.

I agree that white males aren’t innately the best for every role - and that the untapped talent pool outside that cohort should be given a fair chance. However, I also believe that opportunities should, where possible, be made available according to each individual person’s merit. Inequality needs to be addressed in a different, fairer way. Diversity initiatives are inherently unfair and have been so overused they are now very often having the opposite effect to what was originally intended eg however good a new female/black/gay boss is some people will assume they are just a diversity hire and couldn’t have got the job any other way.

I think the point being made was that if you have a responsibility for recruitment, and are good at your job, you shouldn't be repeatedly selecting poor candidates. If the pool you have to choose from contains no one with the requisit abilities, fot whatever reason, then you don't just recruit the least worst surely? Would you not speak up to your own seniors and explain that no one was suitable?

In my recent hires we have 5 white women (1 Irish, 1 from Scotland, 3 from England) and 2 white men (both from England).

We interviewed a diverse field through blind recruitment processes and the people we hired were the best choices for the roles. If they'd all been black or all been from a FSM background etc we couldn't have cared less. We just wanted the best candidates for the role. This time is happened that they were all white. In past posts, that hasn't been the case.

Not sure what the game is with this mouldy peppers as I was told to check my white privilege a few pages back. But now makes a very good point of course the workforce should be majority white as that’s what the population is.

People can be as outraged as they want but I’ll be telling all my kids to lie about their ethnicity on applications. They can ask you these questions but they can’t force you to take an ancestry dna test. Same goes for your sexuality

If you're a hiring manager then part of your job is to hire people, no? If you, as a hiring manager, are consistently hiring poor candidates then that very much sounds like a failing on your part. It's not particularly relevant how "big" the company you work for is or how "prestigious" the grad scheme is if you admit that you aren't capable of selecting good candidates. It's offensive to insinuate that the candidates you do select are bad at their job because they meet diversity criteria when in fact it is because you are just bad at your job.

Exactly.

The uk was 97.5% white and as is still the case today men do not typically have their careers interrupted by pregnancy and breastfeeding.

How absolutely shocking that white men had all the good jobs in this country historically (as well as the shitty jobs like chimney sweep and factory worker because you know the country was literally 97% white but let’s just focus on the privilege)

Sexuality is probably the best bet, there's literally no way anyone can prove you're not bisexual! 😅

It’s 82% white now. How do you propose it becomes 50% in one generation?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that if a group make up a certain percentage of the population you wouldnt expect to see them make up the same percentage of the workforce. EDI initiatives are used when this is not the case and a group is underrepresented in the workforce compared with the proportion of society they represent. Or when a group is underrepresented in senior positions.

Current demographic tends clearly show that the indigenous English (those who have Northern european genetics) will be in a minority in these Isles in a generation, and increasingly so. We have a decreasing or stagnant birth rate, incomers are breeding far more. This trend is already apparent in the youngest generations. So that's correct.

At what point do we become protected in the way other indigenous populations are?

I think you assume I am much more powerful than I am. There are a lot of people involved in the recruitment process. Do you work for a very small company? We have to fill a quota, so we select the most suitable candidates from those presented to us. I am not saying they are not clever people who might do really well in another role. They just can’t compare to the usual top performers we select on the “non diverse” side - generally speaking - and everyone knows that.
We also run return to work schemes for women who have been out of the workplace raising children. This scheme has been very successful and I support it. We have had some great people join the firm via these schemes.

Did you miss my post where I am saying this is not just down to me. It’s a huge amount of people involved in this process and we have to select from the pool we are given. Can I just select white candidates? No. I have a quota I need to fill.

The point I was making about my company being a prestigious one to join (if you want to work in banking) is that we should be able to only choose candidates from the top shelf and we are not.

Also it’s not just about actually getting the job. It’s also getting the opportunity to interview for a job. So if OP’s son on paper is equally qualified as a “diversity candidate” then the “diversity candidate” has a much higher chance of getting an interview than OPs son.

I don't think you know what hiring manager means.

No I don't work for a small company. It seems like you may be surprised to hear that the very impressive bank you work for is not the only global company in existence.

White English population: 43M
UK population: 69M

Unless the Scots and Welsh and Northern Irish seriously up their game, ‘White English’ will remain the dominant ethnic group in this country for the foreseeable future.

You don't need to be powerful to offer up information to protect the business. You may have no control over who you are presented with, but surely you have input into the selection methods? You need methods that actually test core skills and the application of knowledge in a way that reflects the way the candidates would be expected to work once in post. Then if people don't perform adequately you advise your seniors they wont be capable of the job and will be a liability. I find it hard to imagine any serious business is going to knowingly recruit people who you can evidence can't do the job. Why would they put 'diversity' ahead of profit?

I work in financial services and I have hired interns and graduates in the past 2 years. We hire the best candidates, most are actually white as the population is largely still white. We do make adjustments so that the playing field for applications are level. We have a lot of ‘white male and stale’ in the upper management but a lot more women entering our workplace too. Some professions have barriers of entry like law so I get why they would encourage diversity but financial services is pretty good.

Once you go beyond entry level roles, it gets less diverse. So yeah, he has to fight for a chance to get in, but once he's in, he's in and he'll fly high.

Hth.

@5128gap They won’t be choosing useless people! Just a few may not be the highest calibre - but they might be given time and good training. Hence my observation that promotion might be harder to get for them in the long run. Time will tell in around 10-20 years. So far top board rooms are not very diverse! Of course great employees come in a variety of shapes and sizes so the dividing lines are very fine.

The Graduate job market is hard.
DS is a white male, privately educated (large bursary), Oxbridge graduate.

He said recently that at times he regrets working so hard at school and uni as it hasn't paid off in terms of getting a job. It's very sad.