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.

Can you tell me where the ND/women only grad opportunities are please because my ND dd is really struggling...

You’re missing the point. The discussion is about UEL and how a large proportion of its students are local (from Tower Hamlets/Hackney/Newham) but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t smart kids there who aren’t on a par (or better) with the various posters’ more privileged white children at much ‘better’ universities. The reasons for going to a very local university can be much more complex for those from disadvantaged backgrounds and UEL’s student population who originate from Tower Hamlets is a good example of this.

Given the intense competition in the graduate space these days it makes sense for at least some of the most sought after employers to pre-screen according to some base academic criteria. Yes some people to take longer to settle but on average in a large sample, we know what the results will be.

Each UK government has done some good and some bad. I accept that Blair government did genuinely do some good (after following Major's budgetary plans).

The Tories in the last 14 years did some genuinely horribly mistakes but also delivered genuine good e.g. really helped the green economy. The public sector on both sides is always going to have people not being at their best.

If we look at the private sector haven't Oxbridge dominated professional services industries done really well financially?

As I said. It's not the be all and end all. But seems a bit premature to blatantly exclude all academic achievements.

So true.

Actually DH, we're dinosaurs, first in family to go to uni. Did engineering at a poly. Very tough (btw I'd say it's much harder to get good classifications from STEM/engineering) and he did spend too much time having a good time. Came out with a 2.2

This was 30 years or so ago, he then got work experience under his belt, applied to do an MBA at Imperial and smashed the GMAT (top 5% scorer! - he certainly wouldn't have gone in off the back of his uni degree result), went on to become a CEO of a small but very successful engineering company.

He is a very hard-working person and successful now.

Goes to show just because you get a 2:2 from a low tariff uni (poly) does not define you or your path in life. Or it shouldn't!

If we look at the private sector haven't Oxbridge dominated professional services industries done really well financially?

For those seemingly struggling to understand, it has been proven that more diverse companies make better decisions and have higher returns than their peers who are less diverse i.e. they do better financially. So no, Oxbridge dominated is not the recipe for success.

www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/why-diversity-matters

But the person I was responding to was talking about graduate schemes in Finance. We aren't dealing with 16 year old kids who know nothing about anything.

Surely once these students from disadvantaged backgrounds have already got their degree, they understand full well that they can apply for aboslutely anything they like, providing their degree is relevant? Just the same as any other graduate. If they don't realise that by then, then I'd say their whole university experience has been pretty bloody pointless.

The McKinsey study was largely debunked.

@NorthXNorthWestGovernments have been useless for many reasons but the degree ministers have isn’t one of them. The problem is politics. The need to win over voters and get elected. This skews every decision. Unfortunately. There’s some party loyalty and a lot of following the party line. The government bears little resemblance to undergrad degrees and intelligence because other factors overwhelm these. We need a cross section of MPs but few have got near a stem degree @reallyreallycrazy. Few have run a business.

Of course being an entrepreneur doesn’t rely on degree classification and no one much cares where an engineering degree came from. DH employed engineers for 45 years. Far more concern about actually doing the job accurately!

@Isthisit22Any undergrad will know internships and grad schemes exist. If they don’t they an existing in some sort of vacuum and not attending careers fairs, cv seminars and everything else available at university in terms of employment. By this stage, background is cancelled out!

Edited as replied to wrong post

I’ve seen a similar situation in the civil service. No promotions for white males, no matter how qualified you are. Meanwhile the diversity hires are getting promoted left right and centre and most are absolutely useless at their job. Under qualified and out of their depth.

McKinsey itself heavily hire from Oxbridge.

I am an Early Careers Manager and take on around 55 apprentices every year.

The adverts for our roles (videos, case studies etc) showcase a wide range of current apprentices, but especially females and people from black and ethnic minority backgrounds as they are underrepresented in Engineering/Construction.

Industry average for those groups in my industry is around 13% so that’s 87% white men.

I want people to know that the apprenticeship programmes are open to everyone regardless of their background, sex, colour etc.

This years intake was still 80% white makes. The other 20% were NOT diversity hires. They are amazing young people who got their apprenticeship on merit.

For those seemingly struggling to understand, it has been proven that more diverse companies make better decisions and have higher returns than their peers who are less diverse i.e. they do better financially. So no, Oxbridge dominated is not the recipe for success.

Not so much:

https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/diversity-was-supposed-to-make-us-rich-not-so-much-39da6a23

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/mckinsey-diversity-study-questioned-hand-green/

https://maycontainlies.com/discernment-matters-even-more/

https://qz.com/work/2038103/is-mckinsey-wrong-about-the-financial-benefits-of-diversity

@Lucyccfc68 So why have a video that shows diversity candidates then? That’s a clear bias towards wanting them and subliminally putting others off. My DH used to employ civil and structural engineers. Few women have suitable degrees in engineering and you cannot hire who’s not qualified. Plenty of people were hired from abroad but they too needed the skills. For some reason black engineers from a Caribbean heritage are quite few. Asian heritage - lots. I’ve no idea why this was the case but some ethnic groups like engineering and others don’t see themselves doing it at degree level. Ultimately the right person mattered more than diversity stats.

Simple. When I first started that 20% stat was at 3%.

Nothing I do has ‘put anyone else off applying’. It shows that we our roles are open to ALL and not just white men/boys. The video featured young people who were male, female, black, white and Asian. Should I just show my 80% white males then in my campaigns?

The biggest issue you have raised is that so few women have suitable degrees in engineering and even worse construction. Both can lead to a well paid career and I have a personal aim to encourage more women into the industry (and especially STEM roles).

I’m going to be actively working with primary schools and their teachers to look at ways to get more girls interesting in engineering and construction. Need to open this up as an exciting possibility rather than me being at careers events and listening to girls talk about the ‘low paid’ roles they aspire to do.

@Lucyccfc68You did say you showcased especially women etc. No I don’t expect all white males but you have made a point about showcasing groups (other than Asian) that are notoriously difficult to recruit. You cannot force people to be interested in construction and civil engineering. This has been an issue for decades! You might influence a few girls to take physics and maths A level but the media studies girls won’t will they? All the stem careers are fighting for the same minorities and medicine (caring profession) wins out. Or nursing. It’s difficult to see dc wanting these women’s roles as transferring to a construction site. But you can try. In DHs experience few women last the distance to get qualified. Construction does not hold much interest and in the end employers invest in who is fully committed - not whose been told to do it.

I think showcasing traditional ‘male dominated’ jobs to girls at a young age is really needed. DH works in a very male dominated industry and the few young women coming through are impressive and need to be encouraged. The more we encourage a mix of sexes and backgrounds into every line of work, the less likely we’ll see unfair pay (such as we see in female dominated medicine and nursing).

Some of the very best welders I have recruited (as apprentices) are female. Their attention to detail is incredible. One is now a quality manager. They could have put this incredible attention to details into becoming a ‘nail tech’ but their earning potential in structural steel is way beyond anything they would earn doing that.

Recruited a female maths graduate and she is now a senior project manager. One of the lads made a comment about her being a diversity hire (arrogant little shit). He was reminded that out of the 10 graduates I recruited that year, she scored the highest at the assessment centre and he scraped through in 10th. When he struggled with a design problem that needed maths, I absolutely made sure he was sent to see her.

White, males dominate most well paid industries, so I honestly don’t see what the problem is by trying to show others that the jobs are for ‘everyone’.

Kids from a deprived background or whose families haven’t gone to university may well NOT know about careers fairs or internships or grad training schemes. You can be really smart and fantastic at exams and not know the first thing about middle class careers. It doesn’t mean they have wasted that time at university, it just means they don’t have that kind of privilege - yet.

I was like that as a student – I was the first person in my family to go to university and I don’t think I went to the career service once.

I got a decent degree from Oxbridge. My first job was as a secretary because I didn’t know any better - and my family thought it sounded ok.

My career has accelerated massively since - but at the time I was one of those clueless but brainy working class kids who didn’t know anything about graduate jobs either.

Even if you're from a deprived background. There's Google and YouTube and now chatgpt?

How long ago was that? I can't imagine a scenario now where a student isn't aware of career steps, once in Uni.

They don't live in a bubble so they see their fellow students talking or applying for internships. They are less likely to miss opportunities due to SM. It's an entirely different world with online. The tracker spreadsheet that was linked earlier highlights companies I wasn't aware of so the ability to find out information is way easier.

The reality is that if you insisted on a 50 /50 male female hiring of engineers then on a national scale you would end up with lower quality engineers simply because only 17% of engineering graduates are female.

Conversely if you insisted on a 50 / 50 male / female hiring of vets then you would equally have lower quality vets because 80% of Vetinary graduates are female.

This is not sexism but basic maths.

Agree

Which is why I think it's sensible to remove identifying factors such as sex, name, race, religion etc and look at the merits alone instead of selecting by characteristics to make a "diverse mix".

My DS now marks “prefer not to say” if asked his sex, race, sexuality etc.