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.

According to Google there are no all female boards in America, Australia, France, Germany, Vietnam or South Africa either.

it’s even illegal to have an all female board in China

I’m not going to check all the stock exchanges in the world, but let’s face it, I mean it doesn’t even sound true.

I went to a talk about financial risks and the economy. She was on the panel. She spoke about removing DEI metrics in portfolios and says she doesn't care about it. Just how the company is performing and the returns it makes. She gave the example of the female only board and said "we'll this company is run really well by just women. Should they have to make their board half men half women now to be equal?"

But you know when people want to make their controversial point in front of a large audience they sometimes make things up?

I mean her point was she wants DEI gone. It’s not like she realized who wonderfully her all female board was performing THEN decided we should bin DEI on that basis alone was it? She was speaking with an agenda.

I could have misheard it could have been female dominated. Maybe she said "almost all female board". I don't think she's lying and making it up. She doesn't care for DEI. Neither do I.

its funny how many half formed ideas support people’s perceived failure of DEI

How? The guy who set up and runs Jibble doesn't measure or track diversity metrics at all. They shouldn't. Just hire on merit, previous experience how well they preform at interview. Their soft skills and their technical skills.

20% diversity hires doesn’t sound crazy given that in the last census 16% of the population was foreign born. I’m not exactly sure who is included in ‘diversity hires’ but I am assuming it is foreign born people, ethnic minorities and maybe a few others.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/

If the banks are hiring any less than 20%, then we could say that there is a likelihood of bias and discrimination in their hiring process. It’s already a well known fact that women, on average, earn less than men.

For the banks (or any business) it makes good business sense to have a range of people from different backgrounds - it means the workforce has a broader range of perspectives and experiences and are therefore overall more creative and more able to connect with more customers - even just as a small example speaking the customer’s language - but it goes far beyond language.

Many parts of the UK have far more than 20% foreign born inhabitants - I would guess London, Bradford, Leeds, Leicester, Slough to name but a few.

Loads of companies don’t. What’s your point?

I wont take your work for it, thanks

My understanding is that the largest influences on their performance is

Geography, aspirations and disinterested parents

There are other factors, but these are the most influential.

And you call me a liar for saying I got a job after ticking mixed race and bi. I mean tf is unbelievable about that I’m not even saying it was definitely the reason could have been a coincidence for sure it’s not like I said I flew to Jupiter. But sure everyone who disagrees with you on here is lying

You have literally said you have no idea why you got the job, saying maybe it was DEI maybe not.
So saying that you got your job by pretending to be bi/ mixed race is a lie isn’t it?

It won’t be as bad as you think. There will always be some schemes that are targeted at specific candidates only (eg black candidates into law where there is serious underrepresentation). But the vast majority it will still be meritocracy but with some targets - and it’s been this way as long as I can remember in my company - so it isn’t a sudden change.

My work targets 50/50 male/female so sometimes if the male’s spots are full only women will be interviewed for the last few spaces. Ethnicity target I think is 20% non white but in all honesty that one is skewed, the numbers of applicants coming through at interview can sometimes be 80%+ non white and the company is uncomfortable with it as it is kind of lacking diverse the other way. It’s for a very mainstream large company, I don’t know why so few white people apply or get through initial screening.

It’s not a lie. I said I applied for loads of jobs with my shit cv and got rejected then I applied for one job and put I was bi and mixed race and got the job. Didn’t say that was definitely why just said it is what happened.

Not sure why it’s so unbelievable tbh

For all the posters saying "Ops son isn't competitive enough" please make sure you read the post before commenting.

The Ops son is NOT allowed to apply for roles that he might be eminently qualified for simply because of his skin colour. He can't ask to be assessed.

Rishi, who went to Winchester, and his children who are undoubtedly highly privileged could submit an application as they are not barred. Double opportunities if Rishi has daughters. Whereas a white male lad from a poor immigrant family couldn't apply...that's the messed up situation.

If you make comments saying he isn't competitive enough then it's obvious you are just trolling or have difficulty understanding.

No need to waste money on this. Just hire who is best for the role.

I call bullshit on that without seeing evidence. Plus, it would be unlawful to bar white men:

"Positive discrimination is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010, which protects against unfair treatment based on protected characteristics. However, the Act allows for positive action, which is lawful and involves taking proportionate steps to address disadvantages or underrepresentation in a protected group, such as promoting a job to a specific demographic. Positive action cannot involve setting quotas and is only lawful when based on evidence of disadvantage and when all candidates are still assessed on merit."

That's not a complete list of all the opportunities available is it? If you change to summer internships, very few have eligibility criteria.

Except - it’s been shown time and time again that when companies are dominated and run by men they hire and promote other men. Usually me who look like them.
So this whole ‘merit’ thing is incredibly subjective, isn’t it?

I mean it's up to their discretion isn't it? If a company hires and only white men (white people are the majority in the country) then it's up to them. If they exclude other talented individuals due to internal biases then the company will lose out.

@Leadonmacduffs That’s patently not true or no women would be on a board of directors. Women have often had time off for dc and have periods of not being present leading to reduced promotion prospects. However women earning a lot will keep going and see their directorship as the main prize. Of course women do get top jobs but it’s definitely more difficult for them. Women have traditionally been risk averse and tended to chose careers that are not going to lead to a directorship. This is changing but it’s a slow process as women tend to study humanities and not stem.

My apprenticeship - admittedly 8 to 6 years ago was 6 white men, 4 white women, one black man and one black woman, and one south Asian woman. Perhaps all the spots for white men have already gone to better candidates than your son?

Why would the best person for the role be a white male?

and if the best person for the role isn’t always a white male, well done, you’re naturally diverse.

measure your DEi (measuring and publishing it costs nothing) and improve your reputation and brand for being an inclusive employer.

I assume just a particular targeted scheme he can't apply for, not that he's barred from applying for any jobs completely. I just went onto the Pwc UK graduate application scheme and anyone can apply. They ask questions about background and ethnicity etc but anyone can apply. It's not blocked. Now they may decide that their 2026 intake is not super diverse from the general programme and go do some targeted schemes to get the balance they want, but the general programme is open to all.

Oh I so agree with this.
My DD and DS2 also did fantastically well at (state) school and uni. They quite rightly landed fabulous jobs and are excelling in them.
I suspect that you would see DD as the disability hire, and DS as the gay tick box.

This is the same as the example at my old organisation and is illegal. Refusing to interview male candidates after their 50% target has been met is sex discrimination. Mumsnet would be in outrage if it happened the other way round.

In my field, 70% of graduates are male. With those quotas, 70% of men compete for 50% of places, and 30% of women for 50%. This means that those men that are selected will on average perform better than the women.

Shall we impose the same quota that primary school teachers must be 50% male, so that - given the pool of applicants - any male who applies gets hired, while better qualified women are turned away?