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.

@Agrumpyknitter What are the barriers to entry for Law? Lots of tough recruitment rounds but it’s the same for everyone. Why Law in particular?

My son is on a grad scheme with one of the UK's biggest insurance firms. There were about a dozen in his intake - he's the only "white male". Says it all really!

I wonder if you son isn't looking at the big picture of the recruitment cycle? E.g where i work in the City has a scheme for underrepresented groups, vacation schemes open to all candidates at Easter and in the summer, plus the ability to apply straight to the graduate programme. But the graduate recruitment team can't manage the recruitment process for all at the same time, so they have different recruitment windows. If someone looked at what we offer when we are recruiting for the diversity scheme they might assume we don't recruit anyone else but we absolutely do. Our graduates are a diverse bunch, fairly representative of the broader population.

Can someone give him a job please?! He's a really nice, clever young man. 😊

Well I have been a manager for 20 years and part of my responsibilities is to hire for my team, so yeah I would say I do know what a hiring manager in my firm is.

Not sure I should bother replying to your other comment or not. I am obviously taking about my experience in MY firm here.

You can take it or leave it and put my experience down to me being poor at my job, but I am writing my post to say the OP and her son are right.

My god, the victimhood on this thread.

Posters say that white working class boys are the most disadvantaged, behind in maths and English- behind even Bangladeshi girls- and need help to keep up. OK.

But at the same time SOME white boys are really clever and passed over in favour of stupid PoC with worse grades and accomplishments.

I mean, which is it?

(deleted)

Both St John's and Murray Edwards colleges at Cambridge usually run summer schools for which not being male is enough to qualify. In DD's year, there was also an online thing run by Trinity for which I think they also had to be at a state school.
There does seem to be little for boys with no "disadvantage" though.

I dont know what industry you work in bit I work in what was a traditionally male dominated industry.
I never thought I needed to share lipstick in the loos (the equivalent of your grits anecdote). But I do know that some of my talented female colleagues self selected out thinking the industry wasn't for them. And I do know that men did not consider us worthy candidates for some roles (we weren't tough or hard nosed enough).

I used to think it doesn't matter who is in charge.

But what I have learned over the years is role models matter. It's pretty off putting as a young woman looking around and seeing absolutely no women at any senior levels. You think .. maybe women cant progress, maybe this industry isn't for me, maybe there's a reason women are not in senior positions, maybe it's because I dont like football or golf or whatever.

I am not advocating for positive discrimination. But to think it matters not a jot that people in charge have zero meaning or relevance is IMHO being very short sighted.

And in your example. I know senior people of ethnic backgrounds in the NHS can relate to others at junior level. Many of them were at that level themselves before. And the majority have reported experiencing discrimination. So maybe having someone at a senior level who understands that this can and does happen is a good thing. And FWIW I worked with an incredibly senior female colleague who started at 16 as a cleaner.

I am sorry that your son is struggling to get into a graduate / apprenticeship role.
my son is white and does not have amazing A level results - despite being very bright. He had a non - relevant degree (sports) as well. When he decided to look at finance graduate roles there were some companies that he didn’t qualify for but that was mainly because of his A level results. Certainly a number of his white friends are working for high profile companies. DS got into a finance grad programme with a national company - in fact he was offered a place at two different companies in the end.

Good luck to your son. I know how hard it is to keep them motivated.

Ok, but my point still stands that if you - as YOU said - are consistently hiring poorly performing individuals, that makes you a bad hiring manager. Perhaps your "firm" should take another look at who they give management positions to.

OP and her son are not right and your inability to hire competent staff is not evidence that they are.

No, I didn't for a moment think they were. But was giving the poster who claimed otherwise the opportunity to explain how this could possibly be the case.

Well, surely you can see the two examples you gave are totally different? Do you deny that white working class boys and men are disadvantaged despite statistics showing otherwise? Does that not fit with your agenda? Do you deny that by refusing inclusivity in certain job roles and recruitment drives to white candidates that that represents a disadvantage to them?

Do you deny that PoC had historically had to change their names to John and Sid because otherwise their CVs would be rejected just for their funny foreign names? There are surveys on this too.
We could go back and forth with this all day.

It's just amazing to me that if a white person's son does not get on an incredibly competitive grad scheme in an incredibly competitive industry, it must be because a black woman has taken his place, though there are many, many schemes open to all.

No PoC would be able to get away with saying this. My DD didn't get on a scheme. Did I start a thread alleging special treatment? Did I heck.

I day this as someone who just didn't have what people were looking for in my field. Maybe he just isn't as high calibre as the other candidates. I did additional courses and volunteering to boost myself. They need a full rounded human not a droid. Maybe he just hasn't got it yet.

I think the discussion on this thread is a good reason to move away from categorising people, and switch to blind hiring.

Our society is changing quickly. We meed to stay unified, and we mustn’t let doubt and resentment creep in. CVs without names would be better.

It obviously makes you feel better to make this all about me rather than actually listening to what I am saying (and many managers in my firm say the same). Trust me, if I was bad at my job, I would not be here after 20 years.
I very much doubt you work in a large organisation (or at least it would be very different to mine) the way you post.

The two examples given are entirely different because they refer to the disadvantage/'disadvantage' of two entirely different groups of boys, the only thing they have in common being their sex and skin colour.
Poor white boys with no education wouldnt have a chance of getting on to the sort of scheme the OP is complaining about, regardless of diversity measures aimed at other ethnicities.
And I'd be willing to bet most people complaining on here wouldnt give a damn about that as long as their boy got in. Because the only time white poor people become of interest to white privileged people is when it's handy to false/force team with them to appropriate their disadvantage.

I don’t think it’s bonkers, considering that most medical graduates are women ( 60%) now and this should be reflected in senior leadership roles.

How about poor white boys with education?

It’s quite easy for both things to be true, if you think about it.

What about them?

Well you said about the "poor white boys with no education" wouldn't be going in for this type of scheme anyway which is fair enough. But the" poor" white boys with education neither have the MC white boys contacts etc, nor qualify for the diversity schemes being white boys.

So surely that puts them in the worst position of all

I never applied for grad schemes - why? Just look at the comments.

How could a woman who hit every widening participation indicator whilst at university apart from not being in care/ethnicity, be picked for a graduate scheme? That would be incredulous!

You know as a woman, whose mum at the age of 14 claimed benefits and we got free school meals. We didn't have much growing up - I mean I had to do my GCSE's and A-levels without no internet or laptop, as we couldn't afford one. I had to rely on the generosity of teachers - only the ones that believed in me - to photocopy pages out of textbook, as well as having to use EMA to go towards food/travel costs. There was no part-time jobs around - this was in the middle of the global recession.

We never had the money to do 'extra-curricular' activities, we were just surviving, if there was a question at a grad scheme, how did you navigate a challenging situation, I can imagine the shock on the faces of some of the interviewers on here.

Oh, and lets add in the fact that, I'm also neurodiverse - ADHD/dyslexia - and the support for students were less-existent when I was growing up. However, I was 'allowed' into a top University as mature student. I received scholarships and bursaries. For me to be able attend university, it is a privilege - none of my family has been to college, let alone University.

I didn't get A*s at GCSE's and A levels, but you know I was very proud of gaining some, especially when we had house repossessions/evictions for two years. I'm surrounded by people who haven't got GCSE's, and in many ways, the education system has let them down!

As a widening participation student, I participated in outreach events, and I just knew the corporate life wasn't for me. I weren't prepared to sell my soul to work in a corporate environment. I just knew it wouldn't be safe as a working class woman to work in one. University was hard enough. The class divide was massive. "Oh my parents work in finance, my parents work high up in healthcare and they still earn 40k on part time hours".

In many ways, working part-time with people from similar background, was the balance I needed throughout Uni.

However, whilst I didn't get good GCSE's or A-Levels, but I did get a first class degree, and won awards. I managed to get a job straightaway in a more relaxed environment, and I've never felt uncomfortable due to my social background at all.

So don't worry disadvantaged students aren't stealing any grad scheme spots, but I understand and can appreciate that your son worked very hard for his grades - which are amazing :) well done to him! I'm sure something will come up for him - it's just hard in the current circumstances - but something always works out :)

The criteria for the scheme OP is complaining about includes receipt of FSM, and does not exclude applicants on the basis of being white, so educated poor white boys would be eligible.