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.

The disadvantage is something that should be noted on the application in terms of context. But it's disingenuous to suggest all higher education institutions are equal. Applications should be assessed holistically.

But they are not trying to get a place at university, they are trying to get a job. So how is universities being unequal relevant?

your bias that students from a higher tier university make better employees is exactly what needs to be safeguarded against.

Completely agree with @Bambamhoohoo. I think there are a few posters on this thread who need to check their privilege. No harm in us all doing it actually.

I live and work very close to UEL and for many of the students, just getting to uni even a “not very good” one is a huge step forward given the background they come from. Most are local and have grown up in Tower Hamlets (or Hackney or Newham, equally deprived), one of the most deprived boroughs in London that has the highest rate of child poverty in the UK. So “judging on their extra-curriculars” also demonstrates (un)conscious bias. How many families can afford extra-curriculars?! Some can’t afford to eat.

Through my employer (bulge bracket bank) we do a huge amount of volunteering work with schools and not-for-profits in Tower Hamlets and Hackney / East London to try to support the local population and help level the playing field. There is a wealth of untapped talent who just needs a chance and some encouragement to show what they’re capable of. I’m actually quite proud to work for a company who takes this so seriously and isn’t just paying lip service to the idea. In the last 2 months alone I’ve been involved in at least 4 activities supporting the local community like this (one for 16-18 year olds, one for female students, one for the homeless, one for children under 11) as well as mentoring someone who works for a Hackney based community organisation and being a school governor for a Hackney primary school.

So are students at the University of East London equal to those at say, Bristol?

Both universities offer degrees in Accounting and Finance. According to UCAS, the most common A Levels of accepted students at UEL was CCD (the highest BBB, lowest DEE). For the same course, Bristol students had the most common grade of ABB (highest AAA, lowest BBB).

In other words, for the same degree, Bristol students need to achieve much higher than students at UEL. Bristol also makes extensive use of contextual offers, but even so the lowest accepted student at Bristol had the same A Levels as the highest accepted student at UEL.

So yes, students at UEL are less well-qualified and lower achieving than at Bristol. As an employer looking for a finance trainee, I would not consider a first from UEL equal to a first from Bristol.

As employees? Who knows?

you’re not looking to test their degree taking ability are you?

I'm looking to test their ability to process information and work ethic. These are tested by A Levels and are what I need as an employer.

Many pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in Tower Hamlets achieve AAA and higher. They don't go to UEL when they can get into UCL, Imperial or King's.

Again, this just shows a complete lack of understanding of disadvantage and diversity.

one could argue (and they do) that you’re replying on old fashioned measures of success and will get exam taking machines.

it’s a pretty old fashioned approach.

Outliers do make it into Bulge Bracket, MBB, the Magic Circle etc

The advantages offered by access to informed parental support/pushing, better coaching (schools etc), connections, resources and experiences mean these firms are over represented by certain profiles of majority white male and certain ethnic minorities (majority male). People often recruit in their own image and the selection criteria has conscious and unconscious biases baked in, meaning that you are going to get a distorted view of what good or unacceptable looks like. Especially at senior levels and in the front office.

.

On the more academic courses especially Bristol brags about how academically selective it is. Some of the contextual offers are very high grade offers. It is also very expensive to live in Bristol with many first years consigned to the outskirts. Whereas a local uni means less debt if you can live at home. Economics matter.

Exactly. Someone's disadvantaged upbringing should definitely be taken into context and assessed holistically. But don't just ignore the university completely. On average in the grand scheme of things the student at a better university is more intelligent and academic. That does not always necessarily translate into being better at work but there's a decent enough correlation.

If you live at home in London there's so many better unis on Ur doorstep.

Higher education is supposed to be a signal to the Labour market that you have skills. Some unis are harder to get into than others. Some courses are more academically rigourous that others. DS knows a few people who had to drop out of LSE after their first year and redo uni elsewhere at a lower quality but still RG uni.

There's also some human capital accumulation as well as you learn things.

Of course there is a strong correlation between more competitive universities and effective employees. The spurious variables are intelligence and conscientiousness. And of course there are tails and outliers.

Frankly businesses are trying to make money. Not solve all society’s ills. By making money they drive the economy and provide the taxes we need for the common good and for redistribution. That is and should remain their core purpose.

We choose to put some rules on them because we think it is more fair. This is usually at the expense of absolute efficiency and effectiveness. That’s fine. Somethings are worth it. Especially social cohesiveness and getting everyone engaged in the job market. But forcing them to do things they find, expensive, burdensome and suboptimal comes at a cost to us collectively.

People are hired for the value you they can create in the context of a particular organisation. Forcing employers to conform to what someone else thinks is fair, just or convenient should always be challenged. Special pleading, complex justifications etc are just a redistribution to special interests away from the whole.

What does “take disadvantage into account” mean? If you’re not going to give them an opportunity to do the job because they’re at a shit university and got shit a level results what’s the point?

Dropping out of Oxbridge or the Russell Group is not always about being academically inferior. There are other pressures that come into play for even the academically gifted.

If their uni results were shit... Then maybe not. I definitely wouldn't support hiring people with 2.2s and 3rds. People can look at things contextually. You can look at leadership stuff and extra curicullars they ran whilst at uni. How they worked to overcome their hardship. You can also look at their passion for the job and see their skills at interviews. See if they have technical skills and soft skills.

Many pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in Tower Hamlets achieve AAA and higher. They don't go to UEL when they can get into UCL, Imperial or King's.

If you believe this then you really have zero clue about the complex challenges (including cultural as well as financial) and prejudices many disadvantaged students / young people in Tower Hamlets are facing.

so the answer is- make a disadvantaged young person present like a graspy lower middle class person, then you’ll give them a chance?

the problem isn’t university. These are jobs, there is no reason someone with a 2:2 would be better or worse at an entry level job than someone with a first. It’s isn’t an academic exercise and frankly, you don’t need to be that bright for the majority of entry level roles.

the problem is that people like yourself believe the path to success is exam- good uni- and that has been disrupted. The rules changed just as you learnt them. It’s galling.

My cousin grew up in newham ( well from age 15 when she came into the uk). Went to a school called Little Ilford which wasn't a great school. She did get AAA and went to LSE

Well if she can they all can right?

Perhaps is all the brown, disabled gays and women getting the top jobs nowadays, what do I know, but I can tell you that the resumes at our global company now have personal details removed before going to the hiring managers because research into why the majority of our workforce was white and middle class and western named showed that candidates with non-white, non western sounding names weren’t even getting to initial interview stages.

And for senior roles women - or let’s say females sounding names - regardless of ethnicity of names weren’t getting to initial interview stages either.
Probably just a coincidence …

Less well qualified at 17, not by the time they have their degree.

Absolute rubbish my white very middle class DS has secured a degree apprenticeship at a blue chip tech company and was offered another at another major tech company shortly after. He got it as he was the best candidate together with the rest of the young people on the scheme regardless of race, religion and background.

one could argue (and they do) that you’re replying on old fashioned measures of success and will get exam taking machines.
@Bambamhoohoo

What are the methods used now to choose candidates?* *Do they take written tests or is more importance added to an interview?

Entry level as in working at Tesco? Or a grad job? You do need some skills and intelligence to work at a grad job? Some intellectual thinking is needed. Would Arup high a civil engineer who only got a 2.2? I wouldn't want them designing bridges or critical infrastructure. My ds is a professional economist and some level of intellect is needed for his role and the work he does. DS does do quantitative models.

Someone with a 2.2 (barring extenuating circumstances) worked less hard and is less intelligent than someone who smashed a first class honours. Given the multitude of graduates in the UK, makes sense to narrow down to some extent on university and grade.