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.

I think to be as fair as possible you should remove name, sex etc. But keep relevant stuff like University and work experience.

When dh does recruitment he doesn't even know what uni they went to. I don't think we should be uni blind.

@Shinybrightdarling Oh sure!

When did you last apply for a job? Currently students go through online assessments and can be 5 steps down before they meet a person so the process is "blind".

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?

Very fair point - why don't teacher applications work the same way? To meet DEI targets why not ban all women from applying, for a year, to ensure the only candidates getting through are men??

Or what about Uni sport teams..it's often said playing for your Uni enhances a CV, which may help you get a job later, so let's apply DEI targets on selection (as currently happens with internships).

Only those that meet a demographic are allowed to try out or even turn up to demonstrate their skills (as happens with internships) e.g If there are too many middle class boys in Rugby/football teams, prevent them from showing up at trials until the teams are fully balanced with contextual boys ?

Does this make sense for education and Uni Sports?? If not why do we do it for internships?

As an employer, all which university a candidate attended tells me is how smart/privileged someone was at 17.

As someone who knows a reasonable amount about the university sector, I’m well aware that less prestigious universities can do a fantastic job allowing students to flourish where they might not have at school.

And I’ve got two degrees from what MN would consider ‘top’ universities, btw.

I just can’t believe this. DEI is old. Why are people suddenly so interested in it if not related to the rise of the far right in the western world?

On average the student who went to Cambridge is better than the student who went to hull. And you do know it does say how smart the person is. Not all degrees are made equally.

I met someone who trades securities at JP Morgan. He scoffed at the idea that they hire uni blind and says they do take into account the university the applicant went to.

I’d say part of the problem companies with diversity programmes are trying to address is this notion that a graduate is ‘better’ because of the university they attended.

As I said in a previous post, it’s quite possible that large organisations are waking up to the fact that a lot of their problems have historically been caused by middle class men who went to Oxbridge.

I met someone who trades securities at JP Morgan. He scoffed at the idea that they hire uni blind and says they do take into account the university the applicant went to.

I know a lot of securities traders, they’re not all dicks. Although the proportion tends to be higher at certain banks, JP being one of them. They’ll catch up with the 21st century eventually (or get left behind). Whether they like it or not.

I read something somewhere that traders had bigger egos and lied more than than psychopaths...

The Bulge bracket is not where I would go for an unbiased opinion on the calibre of non Oxbridge / Russell Group university graduates.

Absolutely. I work in pharmaceuticals and we recruit people from Oxbridge, RG and local ex polys. In the main the people with middle class backgrounds went to Oxbridge and RG, the 'working class, first in their family to University' people went to the local ex polys. Obviously you get some exceptions to this (we have a Oxbridge reject Uni nearby that takes a decent number of local candidates and they have all, not surprisingly, been exceptional). But the middle class kid who scrapped a third rate degree from a good University is always less hard working and driven than a working class kid with a good degree from a less prestigious institute.

ETA: I also have two RG/Oxbridge degrees.

@JaninaDuszejko Why do you think “first in family” grads go to local universities? That’s rather patronising. They can, and do, choose RG and move away from home because they don’t want to be labelled. They also know which universities are best - and why shouldn’t they?

Obviously not all go to local universities but if you come from a lower socioeconomic group where nobody has gone to University before then it's cheaper to stay at home and go to the local ex-poly and continue in your PT job than it is to leave the region and go to a more prestigious university where you worry you might not fit in among the private school kids.

Isn’t it obvious? Frequently those students don’t come from a background where they would even know those schemes exist. Frequently they don’t have the confidence in themselves to apply due to poor life experiences and lack of parental aspiration/ knowledge. Frequently they don’t have the resources to prepare for or attend interviews.
Parental involvement has been proven to be a large factor in academic and life success.

Can’t believe anyone doesn’t already realise this

@Isthisit22These schemes are for university students. Intelligent people. They really would have very closed ears if they never heard about these schemes. It would mean they never went to a careers event or employers career fair either. On that basis, I’d probably question their motivation to get one.

I certainly knew students who thought the intern schemes were akin to slave labour and didn’t want to work for those firms anyway. They just wanted a little job near home and no intention of branching out! I do not agree that background totally bars dc, its attitude and possibly some family pressure in some cultures. The idea high achieving students don’t know about intern schemes is faintly laughable. Unless they study and live as a hermit.

It’s not disputable that this is the case. You can think up all sorts of reasons why they should be doing this stuff off their own back but that doesn’t change stats.
I did a contract at a post 92 uni and couldn’t believe how excluded its student population were. you don’t think people who work at universities and employers are under some kind of shared delusion when really disadvantaged students just aren’t trying hard enough?

Spent some time thinking about this last night. I think that it is sensible to remove name, sex, race etc and to hire on the quality of the application alone. But I wouldn't remove university. It's not a guarantee, but it's indicative and should be taken in context with the whole application. I know someone who got a 3rd at Cambridge because she spent too much drinking and chasing after lads.

University education isn't the only thing you need. They'd like to see extra curriculars, good leadership. Someone running the Oxford Union for example. Or someone running a finance society etc.

University education shouldn't be fully excluded but should be taken into context with the wider application. For example is the Nottingham graduate really on the same level as someone who went to Harvard?

What I'm against is box ticking where an application is advantaged for being black, only one arm, LGBT etc.

Because the bulge bracket are relatively exclusive and competitive to get into?

What about someone who went to university of east London?
how do you reckon their university would look in your blind testing?

Edited double post

If it's blind testing then you don't know do you?

Your whole point was you said you wouldn’t remove university.

Oh yes sorry. I mean it's not really the best uni is it? But I'd look at it within the wider context of their application. Any extra curriculars they did etc. hardship/extenuating circumstances etc

Depends. Maybe by “not very good” you really mean accessible and stuffed full of poor people and children of immigrants?

again, we are back to disadvantage. Universities like UEL are stuffed full of disadvantaged students. Why shouldn’t they get a graduate apprenticeship/ scheme? Why should it go to the students of higher ranking universities?

I didn’t design the practice, merely sharing what happens in one company in the real world. In my company there are reasonably gender balanced applicants - it isn’t a case of wading through hundreds of amazing men to find the handful of women and hiring them regardless of whether they are any good or not.

No idea about primary school teachers, but I suspect there are no where near the supply of male candidates to aim for 50/50, and no one wants people who are lesser qualified or capable or suitable getting these jobs. I don’t believe men are pushing for equality in the teaching sector - I could be wrong!