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 looked at the data and men and women actually earn the same.....until the first child is born.... because the woman has a career interruption.

I think you're partly struggling because every time I say white MIDDLE CLASS men, you change it to white men, missing out the very important words I've put in capitals and thus significantly changing the meaning and getting yourself muddled.
You also swap and change between white men and white people. So, lets be clear:
80% of people in the uk are white.
40% of people in the UK are white men.
15% of people in the UK are white middle class men.
Its the last group, the 15% I'm talking about.
A representative society would expect this 15% to be roughly reflected in the positions of power and privilege in our society. Yet 73% of roles paying over £100k are occupied by white men from middle class backgrounds. So 15% taking 73% of the top roles. Not representative.
Make sense now?

Train drivers were once considered working class they now earn something like 80k and teachers earn half that. Working/middle class is bullshit in these days.
My kid gets fsm but is actually advantaged because they have me who makes them brush their teeth and do their homework. Dosent sound like a big deal but I can think of plenty of families that don’t get fsm but their children have rotten unbrushed teeth and can’t read because they’re never made to practice. Now that is the real disadvantage in this day and age

It's the textbook definition of casual racism and rooted in ignorance.

Won't somebody think of the poor white people.

Any job earning over 100k makes anyone of any race “middle class” or even upper class at that point. And btw I’ve heard all this before about Jews in Hollywood and Indians in doctoring. From actual racist people

The problem with you 15% is that it is not an objective measure that we can consistently trace.

The working class aren't going to have the same career trajectory as people in the middle class.

Looking at who is in power now isn’t. Executives now reflect the demographic makeup of the UK 35 years ago.

Absolutely, people miss this point completely.

Looking at the racial makeup of academic high achievers today makes sense. From these numbers, if a graduate scheme has 20 places, 7 of those places should go to white men and 3 to BAME men.

It's actually a bit less than 3, but we don't even have this representation. The entire reason for this thread is that there are no places for these 7 white men.

No, indeed they don't. Being born into a less advantaged socioeconomic background is a very important factor influencing a person's life chances. That's not really up for debate. The point of discussion is whether this is ok, or whether something should be done to break through down barriers so that more working class people achieve their potential and contribute at a higher level.

I’m not sure anyone would try and characterise you as a ‘work shy disabled benefits scrounged’ with your level of disabilities and I applaud you and your parents for pushing ahead regardless.

Please don’t try and out words in our mouths and please understand that the issue here is actually discrimination against and exclusion of a section of society on grounds of race or economic background.

A company being rightly required to provide appropriate support for you to participate fully in employment is not the same as racially discriminating against the kids OP and others have mentioned in some quest to fulfil arbitrary EFDI targets.

You comment says otherwise.

It's exactly the same principle though - just as reasonable adjustments are meant to help those with severe disabilities to get a foot in the door - so too are the programmes for those of colour, or lower socioeconomic group.Why is one group who are discriminated against more worthy than another? And yes, there are those who say they are being discriminated against because they are able bodied in response to "disabled people getting priority" 🙄

It’s fine if these people don’t have the qualifications and skills others have. They shouldn’t be considered for jobs alongside those better qualified purely due to ‘not having the same life changes’. Thats patronising twaddle.

If they do have the skills and qualifications they should be judged alongside their equally qualified peers, not given a leg up. That again is patronising twaddle.

Groundbreaking idea - why on earth don’t we just judge people for what they’re like as a person and their skills rather than the stereotypes associated with of their background? If that gives us a workforce of 100 Bangladeshi middle class lesbians in wheelchairs, so be it. They’re the best people for the job.

Surely it’s discrimination to go out to recruit only people with certain attributes?

If people of colour are less likely to apply or are less likely to have the appropriate qualifications so be it. It’s not the employers fault.

I can’t believe UK gymnastics doesn’t have any 43 year old, fat lazy women in their team. Can I sue? No of course not. If I want to make the team I have to obtain the necessary skills.

You misunderstand again. It doesn't mean that 73% of people earning £100k are MC NOW, obviously. If it did you'd probably say 100% wouldnt you? It means, were always MC. As in born into a MC home.

They can make their own success and try and educate themselves and improve their standing in life?

Not expected to be hired on dei metrics.

Many of the WC people I know have no value for education, have no drive and are happy just doing menial stuff and claiming whatever benefits they are entitled to.

What is MC though? I always thought i grew up MC but actually I think we were probably WC. What is the basis for one or the other?

My idea is assess it holistically and acknowledge the fact that to get this they've had to go through extra, showing the resilience under tough conditions.

Not just selecting them because of their disadvantaged background alone.

Ok but how was this worked out?
As I said earlier many of these studies use free school meals as what constitutes working class, meaning anyone earning over 7.4k is middle class.

Or job title? Like the train drivers on 80k and teachers on half of that?

the idea of working/middle class in 2026 is bullshit

I think it tends to mean C1 and above.

The point is that POC don't lack the qualifications, we are talking about 100 people applying for a job who all have the same qualifications. If you are Black/brown/disabled/trans it is much more likely you will be discriminated against in the process. Now that many recruiters do blind applications this helps, but you still have the interview process to contend with. There is a lot of research about even unconscious bias towards names that don't sound English for example. It's not the case that unqualified people are being given jobs because they are POC.

C1 and above I think.
The FSM thing isn't saying to be WC you need earned income of £7.4k or less. They're saying children in a household with an earned income of £7.4 or less are financially disadvantaged. Which is hard to argue with surely?

If he's applying for banking and insurance those are just really competitive and highly paid. If he wants to get a foot in the door he'd be better off applying for a less competitive/sexy area but where he gets a door opening qualification like ACA, CISI or CFA.

So like a mid tier accounting firm. Or management finance team in a corporate. Or a bit of a niche area like VAT, or treasury.

every so often white working class kids doing badly at school is in the news. No one bothers to find out they only mean kids on free school meals as working class. People rush to say white parents are just lazy and stupid.

Wheras if it was black kids doing badly at school those people wouldn’t dare say anything like that in fact they’d probably just say teachers are racist