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.

Sigh. They do hire white people in huge numbers. There are a few- very few- schemes for women, black people and the economically disadvantaged ( which includes white people!). I might add that DS fits into none of these, but you don't catch him whining. The spreadsheet that OP linked shows many opportunities for men, white or not.

There are many brown people with 4 a stars and firsts who don't get on these schemes either! It's a combination of grades- OP's son's grades are very likely not good enough because the competition has 3 or 4 A stars- test ability, and the ability to fit into company culture. The last two can only be achieved by incessant practice. Which is why DS did poorly in his first 50 applications, and then started doing better once he started working on the feedback.

Every company wants to make a profit. They are not interested in hiring stupid or lazy people.

I don't have anything more to say about this really. No point trying to convince terminal victims.

A lot of unemployed parents then below the £7400 income.
i suppose all these " well off" families on under 20k are irrelevant then

Hit the nail on the head with this.

I never said I didn't agree with a diverse workforce or outreach programmes but it was exactly the closed door situation in this example that made my son feel really fed up.

Really my last word. Deloitte opportunities below. DS was offered a place on their grad scheme. ( He didn't take it; he went elsewhere). As you can see, there are a couple of schemes for black people and women. There is also a scheme for poor students and those on school meals. Which includes white working class boys.

But the majority of schemes, including the grad scheme, are open to all.

www.deloitte.com/uk/en/careers/early-careers/early-careers-programmes.html

Well I absolutely agree with this. Whoever thought ‘blind assessment’ was fair? Absolutely ridiculous. As someone who does hire, I am really interested in meeting a student who, against all odds, excelled in their grit comp, made it to a good uni and did well. Why shouldn’t I know that. Instead we have no idea.

I'm sorry, I don't understand? Families living on a total income of under £20k are not considered "well off" according to the measures of poverty in our society. They are considered on the PL. So 'well off families on under £20k' are not an 'irrelevant' group, but a non existant one!
In the majority of cases children living on the PL will be eligible for FSM, making them also eligible for the scheme in the OP.

My DH is with the Met and they have a Leadership/Mentoring programme to help existing employees get into more senior roles but it’s only open to Diversity candidates. There isn’t a similar scheme for White, Working Class candidates like DH so he hasn’t had the same support to get to Sgt or Inspector as his non white colleagues even though as a working class man from an estate raised by a single mum, there’s no privilege there.

I think all white people get lumped together as privileged but white working class (I.e not attending private school and growing up in lower income households) are the lowest attainment group in the UK behind minority groups.So should get equal access to support as Diversity candidates and maybe the term Diversity is widened to include all groups underrepresented in that sector.
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/2270/underachievement-in-education-by-white-working-class-children/publications/

I don’t disagree with diversity schemes and certainly in the large companies I’ve worked at, grad and apprentice schemes are open to all and not weighted towards diversity. Banking and Consulting are still very middle class and grammar/private school heavy for ALL ethnicities (I say that as a non white ex Consultant who was one of maybe 12 in a group of 150 on the grad scheme) so they do need more diversity schemes. But again focus on smart, capable high achieving kids from state comps and lower income background who’ve still done well at uni despite not having the support, inspiration or tools to make it as easy as their peers.

Ahh, the Met. It’s so famously free of racism and sexism that I can’t possibly understand why they would want to support and increase the number of ethnic minority and female leaders…

Another assumption that annoys me is that because certain groups are being positively targeted, it's no longer on merit. As though previous hiring practices were on merit. They weren't! They were on similarity bias (he went to the same school as me), class bias (her parents are professionals who know how to guide her through the process) and hidden racism and sexism (those people are lazy workers, she'll just run off and have babies, etc. ). It's still on merit, it's just that the pool of people to pick from is deliberately widened so that the best people are found. It was the white wealthy boys that previously benefited from positive discrimination!

I agree with much of your post. However, I think its important to remember that diversity schemes are not an act of altruism by employers seeking to be fairer. They often have a primary aim of increasing representation in the work force because that will benefit the business or organisation. In the case of the Met, they doubtless feel public relations with certain groups will be improved by having people from those groups on the work force.
I wish we could move away from the idea of diversity schemes being just about being fairer and helping disadvantaged people, doing them a favour as it were; and see them as about bringing in people who have much to offer and will improve the business in some way but without the schemes would be lost to the business.

That poster was being sarcastic, if you take under 20k to be under the poverty line then you can’t also claim the majority will be eligible for fsm when the income needs to be less than 7.4k

Then the poster (and you?) have misunderstood the eligibility criteria for FSM.
The criteria for FSM is NOT that a family needs a household income below £7400. How could it be, when 25% of children qualify? How could 25% of children be living in households with a total income of £7400 a year or less? How could anyone?
The criteria is that if the eligibility for FSM is derived from being a UC claimant, then the EARNED income part of the total household income must be less than £7400.
Under £20k income is considered below the PL. People on this income level will likely be on benefits or on benefits topping up a very low earned income, so will be entitled to FSM.

Surely no one can really think that in order to qualify for FSM a person must be raising a child, paying for housing, utilities and food for at least one adult and that child on £142 per week? And that 25% of children live in households where people are doing this? Isn't it obvious that this can't be and isn't the eligibility for FSM?

There are kids still receiving fsm because their parents earned under 7.4k when they started reception and they will do so until they finish primary school my oldest child is one of these.

The eligibility is under 7.4 if on universal credit or under about 16k on child tax credit so there will be loads of kids whose parents claimed child tax credit when they started reception. Which has slowly been phased out btw

Theres also army kids and adopted kids who receive fsm.

Those are your explanations for why it’s such a higher percentage than it seemingly should be

Although I’m not sure what relevancy this has to the thread I’ve never once been asked on a job application if I grew up rich or poor.
”Diversity hire” means ethnicity or sexuality and pro tip there’s nothing stopping you claiming to be bisexual or mixed race.

Its actually a lower percentage than it 'should be' because the percentage of children living on or below the PL is 31% and the percentage relieving FSM is 25%. Probably explained by the children living in poverty below school age. However, it's enough of a match to be used a poverty indicator in the absence of a better measure.

There was some scheme recently that you were asked if parents received benefits when you were 14.

I think it sucks as a good measure tbh like I said my eldest is fsm, we’re a pretty average middle class family.
Hell when I was a kid I was fsm and my best friend wasn’t and I was the one living in a nice house while she came to school with Holey tights and I had to share my lunch with her because she rarely had any.

Really? So you could be unemployed for a few months when kid starts school so qualify . Then get free meals for another 7 years even if you are earning a 6 figure sum?? Crazy.

Those aren't deprived kids at poverty level

And I believe under the 16k is only if you didn't get WTC so meant you were working under 16 hours a week. I do know how tax credit worked

The relevance to the thread is that the scheme the OP is talking about incudes FSM as an eligibility criteria. So clearly is attempting to be inclusive of people from financially disadvantaged backgrounds as well as other under represented groups.
Diversity does not refer only only to race or sexuality. It means having a workforce representative of the different groups in society and so including women, POC, disabled people, people who are not well off etc, in environments that are historically dominated by white middle class men.

Yes although I’m certainly not going to be the one to complain 😂

This. These schemes are to help disadvantaged applicants who would struggle to get into industry and have managed to get qualifications despite their circumstances and for underrepresented groups.

Its not perfect I agree. What would be a better one? There are flaws with most I can think of.

That's the maximum you can EARN. Then benefits on top.

Kind of encourages people to barely work if they are not really any better off by working full time

Historically all jobs were dominated by white men in this country. Someone said up thread the uk was 97% white in the 70s and baring in mind women have always taken a career hit due to pregnancy and breastfeeding. Of course white men historically dominated the good jobs, they also dominated the shit jobs.