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.

Congrats to him! 🥳

My ds also had disadvantaged friends at LSE. They both didn't have much money growing up. One of them grew up in a world of despair. Both got into LSE and worked hard. Despite their disadvantaged upbringing they preserved.

Please look at this link from one of Tower Hamlets worst performing secondary schools (only 39% of pupils get 5+ in english and maths at GCSE). It has pupils that get into Imperial, Kings and Oxford, as well as course such as medicine etc.

https://www.mulberryacademyshoreditch.org/19903-2/

There is no need to have low expectations just because someone is from a less privileged background.

I think removing, names and genders is sensible. Just keep the relevant data and don't hire to tick a box.

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.

I admit that I’m not the most patient person at the best of times (that’s bulge bracket directors for you 😜) but holy hell it’s like talking to a particularly dense brick wall.😡 Which bit of disadvantaged do you not understand?! Are you not able to appreciate that some people’s backgrounds and/or entire lives are effectively “extenuating circumstances”? “Smashing a first class degree” is an indicator of academic prowess but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are the best candidate for the job (unless it’s being an academic!).

Yes grad jobs. I work in finance and the roles and qualifications don’t take much brain. Grads do PowerPoint and excel work. No one is interested in their academics.

i assume you are well aware that no grad is designing a bridge.

The excel work takes brains. At least the one my DS does. He's not in finance. He's moreso an industry economist and does cost benefit analysis modelling. He's had to design complicated models for his research papers and consultancy projects. This takes time and planning with the assumptions and calculation methodologies rigorously tested. There's been an increased demand in coding skills and the need for python and writing scripts to handle and interpret data.

At an event he bumped into a PhD Maths graduate who is using directly using his maths skills in modelling energy storage technologies. He could have worked in a quant fund but wanted to do something more meaningful.

I assume the grad would be working with colleagues to design the bridge?

So they didn't do well at school, didn't do well at uni but despite all this they are gonna be the best productive employees at work?

Going back to my DS again he actually dropped out of A Levels and changed to BTEC’s as he didn’t enjoy them. What got him the degree apprenticeship was that he spent the whole of Summer taking up every bit of work experience and online accreditations that he could get his hands on, got offered an internship after 6th firm college and proved himself that year. He did well at school but not the 4 A stars at A Levels and although would have got Russell Group he wouldn’t have got Oxbridge or LSE nor would have wanted to. Work ethic if you can get a foot in the door is everything.

And when I said I couldn’t get a job while putting I was straight and white on applications (cv with literally nothing on it not because I’m lazy or stupid but because I got pregnant at 15) until I finally put mixed race and bi I was called a liar on this thread but that doesn’t happen when someone comes in with an anecdote that supports their world view.

For as long as they don’t ask for actual proof of sexuality or ethnicity I actually like DEI lol

Not in every case, obviously. The point is that you can't rely on academic outcomes as a reliable measure of inate intelligence, creative thinking, interpersonal skills or diligence. Because all of these qualities can exist in a person who didn't achieve qualifications due to a variety of barriers. Just as they can be missing from a person who did well in education because enough support and money was thrown at it to elevate their mediocrity.

He got that knowledge through experience, not through his degree. Graduates aren’t doing his job.

surely that’s obvious?!

You aren’t serious?

Did you have a graduate job? You know it’s just an entry level learning post right?

I think we all agree that some jobs need street smarts and some jobs need book smarts. Some need both.

Where jobs are about written communications, data analysis/manipulation, logical sequencing, managing dependencies and risks, etc., high academic achievement is relevant. If it’s not, we should ask why we are bothering to send so many young people to university.

Where a job just needs a smart person without high level skills, then businesses will be happy to take a chance. However, if I need polished communication skills, critical thinking and numeracy, I don’t want to sort out what parents and teachers failed to do. I want the finished article. My goals are business deliverables, not parenting and tutoring. Some mentoring and training is to be expected, but it is expensive and time consuming, so I will choose the least risk option to invest in.

There are far too many young people in university and too few jobs for them.

Where jobs are about written communications, data analysis/manipulation, logical sequencing, managing dependencies and risks, etc., high academic achievement is relevant.

Not necessarily. I’ve worked with plenty of people over the years with all those skills that didn’t go to university, or do A levels, let alone have “high academic achievement”.

I am sure you can find exceptions. How do you think a business with thousands of applicants for 20 graduate training roles will do the first sift? Do you go looking for ducks on a hill top or in a pond?

Is that really so? A good friend of mine has been in tte field for 35 years and we always assumed the relative dearth of men below board level, where they miraculously appear, was due to the abysmal pay in publishing.

25 years ago it seemed to be dominated by clever posh girls who presumably got fed regularly at weekends by their parents.

A few parties but shit wine and pay.

You really show your true colours when you dismiss someone who perhaps got BCC at A Level and a 2-2 in their degree as “not doing well”. You have no idea where people are starting from. Your DS with his first started at the 25m line in a 100m race.

And you say in another post that someone with a 2:2 won’t have the basics skills to do a job in their field? Nonsense. If you asked me to match all the grads in my workplace to university attended and degree classification gained, I’d get it all wrong. Apart perhaps from nailing the entitled, not-as-good-as-they-think, middle class young men with Oxbridge or RG degrees.

That is the issue you get a few exceptions like my DS who put himself out there and could have done Oxbridge if he had put his mind to it and had the inclination. It is natural that you gravitate to the very best as a starting point. It sounds terrible but my heart almost sinks when friends proudly wave off their kids to add to the never ending pile of criminology graduates from the old polytechnics.

Friend's DD is a civil engineer. I asked her once what types of projects she works on. She said "oh I've been doing bridges". So I assume in some part of her job she looks at bridges.

Exactly. They'll use certain core metrics to filter out the low hanging fruit. It just has to be done due to the intense number of applications.

Not everyone getting a 2.2 has extenuation circumstances. Obviously extenuating circumstances and personal hardship should definitely be taken in context. But it seems silly to be to just blanket not look at grades and the university degree. It should be toTo me (bar obviously serious hardship and difficulties) a 2.2 is a poor signal to the labour market. On average it shows the person couldn't handle the academic pressure, discipline was inconsistent and they didn't adapt. Obviously it's not reflective of everyone but it is an indication that should be used and assessed as part of the wider application.

I do agree with PPs that removing names and gender from the pre-screen process is sensible and helps mitigate biases.

Brains on average take up to mid 20's to develop. Some people take longer to settle but once they do and they find their place they may outperform for the rest of their lives. Some go to Oxbridge and end ambling around rudderless boat for one low skilled job to another, never living up to their 'earlier promise'.

Consigning someone the the scrapheap for not meeting a narrow criteria (no A*'s/2.2 etc) earlier on in their life says more about the person judging them than it does about the individual.

If having a degree from highly selective and exclusive Oxbridge and the Russell Group was the measure of our brightest, best and therefore most deserving (according to some), why have successive UK governments been so spectacularly shit?