Numeracy tests not needed for Treasury Employees

[MsGreying]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/06/30/treasury-ditched-numeracy-test-to-increase-diversity-hires/

Department removed its mathematical assessment in 2020 to remove a ‘hurdle’ for candidates from ethnic minorities

AIBU to think this is bonkers.
Meritocracy has a very valid place in government.

But there is no specific treasury qualification 😂

these are the cream of the crop graduates

Again how do you know that they are "cream of the crop"? Those that aren't can easily be weeded out with a basic numerical test.

"oh the best of the best are applying" - to see if they are actually so. They can sit a basic numeracy test.

It depends what is counted a “basic numeracy”. The old teacher one required stem and leaf diagrams. As an engineering graduate who had been working for 4 years it’d been nearly a decade since I’d encountered one when I sat the teacher numeracy test. And as a physics teacher I haven’t seen one since that test. Complete waste of time.

Again this was for grads who took all sorts of degrees. A fresh history grad from Hull would have to showcase their numeracy.

Look at the test was. They didn't scrap it because everyone found it too easy they all scored well.... They scrapped it due to subsidy diversity

A recent LinkedIn post reminded me of this thread:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/philippa-newis_im-overhearing-a-group-of-civil-service-activity-7479153455417245696-ZPO7

We want HM treasury grads to understand inflation and percentage changes don't we?

Not sure I’m convinced by posters suggesting that you don’t need lower level numeracy skills to do higher level numerate work. DH does a lot of financial modelling as part of his job, in the billions sometimes but usually hundreds of millions, he’s also done the other end and been sent off to find a couple of quid. spends a lot of time on legal stuff these days. BUT his very basic numeracy skills are still extremely on point. I often use him as a human calculator. He has a global instinct for numbers in all their forms that I just don’t have.

I find it hard to imagine working in an area that is demanding of certain skills set and saying “oh yes but it doesn’t matter if you can’t do xy or z aspect” because to be able to do a highly numerate job well you should be broadly numerate. If you are good at one aspect of maths you should be good at a different aspect too because underpinning the skills should be an instinct for how to work things out.

I also think even if you aren’t doing actual things directly working with numbers you need to have a very good grasp of numbers to comprehend what you are looking at and understand if it seems right or not at the policy end.

Not convinced by this tbh, also to echo others from ethnic minority backgrounds we don’t need this help thanks. If someone isn’t able enough for the job no-one is helped by them getting it. The point is they removed it apparently to specifically enhance diversity, they didn’t say it was because it was no longer relevant. The treasury could have corrected the telegraph if that was the case.

Also I would point out the big 4 use similar in the graduate recruitment and there is no dearth of ethnic minority background people working in those companies (I’m related to a few). So I’m not sure exactly which ethnic minorities this was targeted at. It’s a bit confusing tbh.

Completely agree

If they have GCSE maths for a clerical job that would be sufficient. For a senior job actually requiring mathematical knowledge they probably have a degree in maths or accounting etc. Likewise if you are playing football for a league team you really don't need to prove you can do ten push ups.

This is the graduate scheme policy advisor role. This isn't an Economist only role, they need to be able to prove numeracy (or at least they should have done).

This role is open to anyone from any degree and they allow people with 2.2s to apply

It’s interesting, Dh has come across people at work who are supposed to make decisions but don’t understand how a financial model is built up or have no idea that what they are looking at is one costly mistake because they just don’t have competence in that area (strengths in other areas so this isn’t a dig).

Now MP’s yes you wouldn’t necessarily expect to be able to really get into the weeds with this stuff. I would suggest though that policy advisors need to be able to grasp it even if they don’t work up the numbers themselves. I don’t think you necessarily have to have a maths background to get good at this stuff but I do think you need to be highly intelligent and able to work things out quickly (which usually coincides with not finding maths too bad). A numeracy test should be able to filter grads from non economics/maths/engineering background and give a decent shot to graduates who are highly able but have arts degrees for example.

Yeah still not convinced this is a great idea.

Ok just looked and 25.4% of treasury staff are ethnic minority vs 17% of the population. I’m not seeing what problem they are trying to fix. Wonder if it’s a specific demographic they are targeting, I can see a target of 6% black people employed vs current 3.5% workforce but no breakdown for other groups.

If all of those 25.4% are south East Asian, and none are black, could you see a tiny problem?

Not really, the best black candidates are probably doing something with shockingly high fees at KPMG. According to google only 3.7% of the population is black so current employment levels of 3.5% mirror the population percentage. They are not underrepresented.

There is a problem is you can prove people are excluded from work because of their colour then yes of course there would be a problem. Failing a numeracy test is a perfectly legitimate reason to not employ someone imo. Engineering spaces for less competent candidates is not helpful to ethnic minorities most of whom achieve what they do on their own two feet. It’s toxic to etnic minorities imo.

If they get the job done and are competent no

Agree with you here again

Not in London…. Perhaps the Treasury wants to be a welcoming place for the best black candidates. Just assuming they’re all off doing something else isn’t exactly a robust DEI policy.

Look, if black people were massively underrepresented in the treasury (it may not be aimed at black graduates, it may be aimed at someone else, thats the only target for employment I could find) then it’s perfectly reasonable to ask yourself if you are missing out on quality candidates from that community because you are not doing something. Perhaps you aren’t advertising that you are an open and inclusive workplace, perhaps your local demographics mean that there aren’t many of that demographic in your locality. it is not a bad thing imo to make sure you are reaching out to make sure your pool of candidates is the best you can get, whether that is women, particular religious, ethnic groups, I have no objection to those questions being asked.

BUT they are not underrepresented, they are fairly represented as a proportion of the UK population, ethnic minorities are quite significantly overrepresented as a whole and clearly the majority of them would have had to pass the previous numeracy test to be working there today (including that 3.5% black population of employees).

So if ethnic minorities are overrepresented and the only target is to increase black representation then trying to lower standards and fudge assessment to get a particular outcome, thats not great is it? It also means the headlines allowed for a massive misunderstanding, because people would have read that and though ethnic minorities are underrepresented in the treasury because they couldn’t pass numeracy tests and that is actually not the case at all.

I don’t like DEI and I think you will find a lot of ethnic minority people find it to be patronising and unnecessary as well. Anti racism, anti homophobia etc etc legislation which protects people from discrimination absolutely 100%. But no I don’t need nor do I want DEI policies, I’d be horrified to find I got a job because of DEI. So no thank you.

We are brown, have done fine without DEI

Both the Telegraph and Spectator articles make the "mistakes" of linking this to ethnicity. The report the decision was based on refers to socio-economic background not ethnicity.

Do you have a link to the report?

Even so, if they can't get through the numeracy test maybe they aren't best placed there

It also ignores the other rounds of testing which policy applicants will have to do which will test their ability to handle the data.

I got a 1st from an RG uni n a numerate discipline (psychology) and I don't even have an O level in maths. I just ticked the appropriate boxes and blagged it when I applied for jobs and courses. No one ever checked or asked me to produce certificates from the 1950s.