Anyone watching 'How to crack the class ceiling'?

[Aslockton]

On BBC2 now about how working class university student break through barriers to land elite jobs.

Watching it now over lunch. It is very well done. I don't agree with some of its stance, but it is still interesting.

I think it is a presumption that jobs are allocated to 'people like us'. I think most people working in a range of professions soon realise you want to recruit competent high performing people, not necessarily people that would be ideal to socialise with. If a disproportionate number of recruits come from certain backgrounds what is to say that those people weren't the best for the post?

I don't think professions should lightly change entry requirements for the sake of diversity and inclusivity; the standards are in place for a purpose. There must be trust placed in professional experience when setting the entry standards and curricula I professional roles and I think the public are right to expect that.

@Xenia
Is it not a problem that writing good English is a requirement of certain jobs? DH is a Chartered Engineer/Consultant Engineer. He has to correct grammar in reports written by engineers/employees. It matters what you say. It must be accurate. You are professionals with qualifications and you are trusted to be accurate. DD certainly couldn’t write incorrect position statements. It’s not doing the job.

So I’m wondering why we have to accept anyone who isn’t good enough? DH struggled to get staff. Engineering has struggled with that for years. Overseas staff write better than some uk educated staff. For DD and law, there’s no shortage. So the skill level is understandably high. The recruiters expect the best. They also expect advocates to be understood. By everyone.

Is the program about class of ethnicity or both?

One thing that strikes me that of your natural way of speech includes a lot of intersections like 'like' or you miss words like 'the' is that an accent or the misuse of English? It is often important for roles that there is a good level of spoken English and how thanks interpreted is key here. If being working class means your speech is peppered with effectively slang should this count against you??

This reminds me of universities not marking down grammatical mistakes as quality of grammar can be interpreted as a 'class marker'. Should employers be lenient to those whose manner of speech may not come across brilliantly in interview.

Another thought. We would not presumably go to an interview wearing a good chain and no tie (as a man) out of professional respect so is it incumbent on the applicant to consciously dial down any slang in speech again out of respect for the interview process?

I am on episode 2 now. It is about class, not just ethnicity and I am glad the Indian working class London presenter goes to places like Hull and even Somerset to interview white working class people. He even makes the point that because he was in London he is much more privileged than the white working class miles from London which is true. A white working class boy states for the BBC job for which he applied he did a freedom of information request afterwards and found that over 40% recruited were BAME (which he says he understands even though this is well over the % in the population but that he therefore was excluded even though much worse off and unprivileged than most others).

I am certainly not on the side of the new SQE1 solicitor exams which require not a single sentence of written English. Given written and spoken English is a key part of being a lawyer, the idea the new exams in their academic part do not require written English seems bizarre to me.

"Is it not a problem that writing good English is a requirement of certain jobs?" it like not reecruiting people with shaking hands to be surgeons. Making sure a lawyer can do the job (ie write letters or contracts correctly) is no different from ensuring a surgeon has the skills not to cut you open incorrectly. Of course there are many jobs where written English does not matter.

There is a lot of food for thought in the series. One university student who was taken to somewhere like Morgan Stanley with the TV presenter might not have had the right qualifications even in terms of exam results I suspect for the jobs (and has applied for fewer jobs than I did so may be was not applying for enough of them). A fascinating aspect of it was the suggestion firms in the City are just going through the motions to trumpet diversity but not in practice recruiting enough people who are from lower classes. The student was told brown shoes would not rule you out for a job, yet the presenter said when they left despite that they saw 70 employees in that company and 100% had black shoes and only the presenter (who also as well as dropping his Ts in an irritating way and having lots of extra words and like and that kind of thing between his words, had all kinds of gold jewellery all over him) and the student were the only 2 people there that day in brown shoes. In other words the suggestion was the company said brown shoes did not matter but clearly they did.

It is well done as it looks into whether people should change to fit in somewhere or not. At the end of the day in my view if you can do a job and fit in with the clients then changing yourself is no big deal.
Not knowing what is making people fail in job applications is not fair on them, several experts did say ion the programme and I agree with that. Knowledge is power even if you decide as a result to found your own company where everyone is working class.

I thought some of the students were assuming they did not receive a job offer because of class without realising vast numbers of middle class privately educated students with excellent grades also often don't get those jobs either as it is so competitive.

mids on the dialing down etc they did look at that on the programme. The presenter implied it was not right someone should change but lots of others disagreed - if you want to fit in then you have to as you are not likely to be able to change a whole system.

I suppose I found it interesting because I have had 5 of my children graduate in the last few years so have been thinking about how some of them and their friends get into particular jobs and why they choose them and how we all end up where we do in life.

Watching part 2 at 9pm BBC.

I think the old school tie still gives advantages in 2022.

@Denis

@Denis

@Xenia

I think we all assimilate a bit in the working environment. Often when one starts a new job they keep their head down and observe the behaviour of others and work out the office politics; human nature. If everyone wears a suit and tie you are likely Fiona well; more social awareness than strict adherence to policy.

Therefore if you are from a minority background it might be easier (and politically expedient) to ditch some mannerisms. It may not be right but maybe it's necessary.

I think you have a good point that there needs to balance in such programs, as you say a lot privately educated graduates would have been unsuccessful in applications so screaming 'class bias' if a working class graduate is unsuccessful might seem a little sour.

I thought the guy who was one of two to go to university from his school had done incredibly well and should be proud of his achievements however I also thought he was a demanding a rags to riches type narrative to his life.

Interesting research by the doctor re exclusivity.

@Rummikub
Its mostly men who have the old school
tie. I think it is less important than lots of other factors. It’s over-stated.

There wasn’t much discussion of which university and what degree. What difference did that make? I would have liked to have known what degrees successful applicants had, and where from. Was a Banking and Finance degree what they were looking for? Little feedback, so who knows.

Agree some more information would’ve been useful. Adnan did well in the end getting a trader role.

I’m yet to be persuaded that old school tie doesn’t matter.

Interesting comment in The Times about this at the weekend. It said AR seems reluctant to admit that to break into the elite you have to become like them - look right, speak right, act right, etc. rather like Thatcher having elocution and lowering her voice and he skirts around rather than confront this

The idea of changing your mannerisms to fulfil a role is counter the inclusivitty narrative of the BBC. The BBC has a remit to diversify the classes, ethnicities and sexualities seen in screen so maybe they feel other institutions should follow?

I agree with no knowledge of degree institution or class along with no insight into interview there is little substance to back the accusation of bias. Perhaps AR could look at the lack of non Oxbridge educated presenters on the radio 4 today program (thought not).

AR also worked for the FCO before going to Cambridge. He’s not entirely comparing like for like. Maybe he should look at why he’s got where he has?

Old school tie might mean something if it’s a handful of top schools. It relies on someone high up or influential in an organisation being at the same school as you. Women rarely get that and loads of women are recruited. I’ve read though that a handful of girls’ schools are now considered useful for a lev up. The same applies though. Someone from the school in recruitment. I don’t think they really thought precise private school mattered. What evidence did they give about specific schools? I don’t remember any. So it’s gut feelings and hearsay.

I was interested in predicting where you end up by looking at highest earning parent when you are 14. Not quite sure what research made KPMG choose that. (It was them, wasn’t it?)

Yes it was KPMG.

Is it not true that the higher up an organisation or career you go the more white and male it becomes?

i found Seth interesting and I liked how he put AR on the spot.

The DG of the BBC sounded a bit evasive to me.

Her accent and class didn’t fit.

^

This.

Only way is to leave the UK for a less class obsessed country.

Isn't it doing a diservice to middle class.young people who have achieved a lot in their given field that their position in life is simply down to class bias?

I if you draw parallels.with race then some pick up on the fact that if there aren't a given proportion of ethnic minorities in a role then that institution is biased or even racist e.g. women's elite football. The same could be said of classicsm , if there aren't x% of people in an institution from working class backgrounds that institution is skilled as having a class bias; is this correct?I

The institution should at least look at why that is. Similar if the workforce is male dominated. Or if it’s a mainly female workforce but senior managers are predominately male.

And yes it could indicate bias.

Beyond the macro societal forces regarding elite educational opportunities, family money to fund internships etc

There are three personal forces at play when trying to transcend your class - having the guidance, role mode, drive, intellect to putting yourself in the position for the opportunity to exist in the first place.

Someone to give you your opportunity.

The ability to ‘leave your family culture’ behind and face the ridicule of people not wanting you to get ‘above your station’ - people getting ahead can be very confronting for some not inspirational.

Maybe a fourth one - the ability to reconcile being an outsider but deserving your place anyway…

My experience has been that it’s families themselves that can limit what DC do. They feel their “station” is working class and are quite happy with that. Not everyone is open to guidance. There’s definitely an issue with some families accepting that “good enough is good enough” rather than aiming high. Fear of the unknown and not fitting in.

There’s also the inconvenient truth that the working class was huge 70 years ago. Many people were then able to become better educated and made the transition to middle class. My family on my mothers side is a classic example of this. My mother’s grandfather could not write. Even my grandfather left school at 11. Yes. I’m quite old! My DH’s great uncles were farm labourers. The women were straw plaiters. DH went to a grammar school and became a Chartered Engineer. He’s not unusual in making this transition. Education and making the right choices is key.

I didn’t think their spoken language would have held any young person back in the programme. There didn’t seem to be any analysis as to who else didn’t get the jobs either.

The doctor who conducted the anonymous interviews found that there was bias. That they looked for people like them. Spoke like them.

Education can help with social mobility. Though I think it’s a generational change.

Families do have a huge influence. And a lot of the time I find I am fighting to show a different perspective to young people.

I thought a bit more information on the candidates might have helped eg was banking and finance one who sadly did not obtain a City job have the right degree (eg sometimes institutions want maths or economics and high A level grades or a more general arts degree as a first degree).

It is very interesting looking at how all of us decide who else is good, at work. Eg I often find it is people who have very fast ideas, so you state a concept and immediately they are quickly on to it so you are hardly having to explain things to them so clearly I seem to favour some kind of quickness of thought and speech. That is nothing to do with accent other than that pointless words like "like" and "I think" slow down the flow of the ideas and put me off. I am from the North as are plenty of people in City firms.

The young man from Somerset to me had just about no accent at all and yet everyone seemed to think he had a strong local accent which really surprised me.

Anyway it was an interesting programme.

Yes! I thought the same about Seth about his accent. To my northern ears he sounded posh.

I too value quickness of thought however not at the expense of accuracy.

More information about backgrounds and degree programmes would have given useful context.

My STEM discipline is a good choice for would-be finance types and a substantial minority of my personal tutees elect this pathway every year. The only one I can recall who had absolutely no luck was a brilliant young (white) man from a working class background. (Our uni has a distinctly middle class vibe.)

He also had bad teeth, a strong Geordie accent, had overcome significant obstacles and was one of my most personable students ever. Between the talent, the work ethic and the personality I thought he would be an asset to any organisation. But no. It certainly made me wonder. (I am from a more egalitarian EU country.). This was quite recent

@poetryandwine
If it’s high net worth client facing: bad teeth is an issue at 21. Obviously in the commercial world it’s not great either. So maybe employers, understandably, want to promote their organisations with ok looking people? Not models though! I can see why this was an issue. A company loan to get them fixed comes to mind. Maybe that’s too American!

I didn’t think Seth had a hugely strong accent. His home looked nice enough too. He obviously got a job but many young people like him don’t get what they want, even with MAs.

Also, they didn’t explain that internships are often paid. They just let him say he could not do one. What had he been involved in at uni/home to promote his cv? Difficult to know. Had he made any effort to network? Not sure.

I think Seth said that self funding an internship would be difficult.
The young woman he spoke to had travelled into London for three months but was supported by her parents.