Degree classifications and uni blind recruitment

[Stilton65]

Wondering if anyone can explain this to me? I've read on a number of threads on here that many employers are moving to uni blind recruitment and that it is therefore, in some cases, more advantageous to get a 1st than to go to a higher ranked university and get a 2.1 (obviously both would be great!). My understanding is that there is meant to be parity across the universities in terms of what would be worthy of a 1st or a 2.1 and so on and that they are externally audited?

I came across this article in the TES showing % 1sts etc from Sept 24 TES . Screenshot below ranks the ones that give the highest proportion of firsts - the top seems to have been cut off but the 2nd % column (Imperial 52) is % 1st. Imperial and UCL are very high up but Oxford is 16th, Cambridge is 22nd and LSE 23rd. So it's much easier to get a first at many unis with relatively low offer requirements than some of the most competitive, and I do find it hard to believe that these final degree classifications are equal?!

I can understand the rationale behind blind recruitment but I don't see how it can be taken seriously with data like this? Anyone?

I get the chance today I’ll create a couple of visualisations

Using the CUG rankings (from three years prior) and the 22/23 date in TES. All somewhat simplistic but does give an overall, albeit single reference point, picture.

Starting with the very obvious CUG overall ranking (using placement) and entry standards. No real surprises.

Then these are the TES percentage of 1st and 2.1s awarded plotted against CUG overall ranking and then against entry standards. Again nothing too dramatic, and if 1st or 2.1 is a key selection cut off point, probably more relevant than the the pure 1sts only in the next post.

Then just taking the TES percentage of 1st class degrees I can understand why @Stilton65 might have raised an initial eyebrow.

Thank you @boys3 ! Interesting

When looking at the final exams, you also need to consider how calculating results have changed too.

I did maths at a top university in the 90s.
I had to pass the first year, but then no exams counted until the finals in 3rd year.
I had 9 papers, all of which had 8 questions, which represented 2 x one term lectures (split by question 4 and 4). You were told answering 4 questions per paper was doing exceedingly well.
To decide what degree you got they had a very complicated way of working out different scores. You got:
Total score per paper
Sum squared per paper (that was if you got 10 marks on question 1 and 8 marks on question 2, you would get 102 +82 = 164 marks. This was to reward getting to the end of the question more than doing lots of half questions)
Each question was marked out of 25 and score 20-25 = alpha, 10-20 = Beta and 5-10 = gamma (I think). You then got a mark that was 2x (no of alphas) + (no of Beta)

To get a 1st you had to score highly in all three, but it was only the overall mark that mattered; you could get 0 on a paper and still come out with a first if you did well enough at the rest.
I got a high 2:1 with one brilliant paper (almost full marks on the questions I did), one quite good paper, one okay paper and 6 terrible ones - one of them I got one gamma and all others were under 5/25 marks.

Dd did maths recently at a different top uni.
They had exams in 2nd and 3rd year that counted.
They had to pass every exam with at least 40%. I think that is fairly standard now. They do moderate the exams so it's not exactly 40% iyswim but that's the aim.
They are expected to try and complete all the questions and there's far more than 8 questions.

So, they do have simpler questions, but are expected to do more questions and they have to be able to do all the subjects. Getting 50% on every papers in my day would have been enough to get a first several times over.
One reason why I did have terrible papers was because I could ignore the subjects I didn't like knowing that it was more important I completed as many questions on the subjects I liked than struggled to do a few half questions on the subjects I struggled with.

I'm not disagreeing that exams are easier or not. I have not enough knowledge about it (I specialised in a different area than dd, although we did agree that the same subjects were hard). However I'm just saying that although hers look easier on paper, she also had to do better in.
And I think that did make her a better mathematician than me. As I said, I ignored revision for Algebra in order to concentrate on what I was better at - and scored I suspect in the single digit percentagewise. She couldn't do that - and scored a very respectable 60% approx. Because she found it hard she had to put more hours in.
So she came out better rounded, although perhaps I was stronger at my specialism than she was at hers.

It is always hard to compare past exams as things change so much .I think my O levels in 1977 when thre was the easier CSEs too that many only took are probably what then became AS level of 2019 - ie were pretty hard BUT there is never too much point in comparing with the past. One person on my LLB got a first and in my day only a third of people got 2/1 or higher AND only 15% of 18 year olds were going to university at all so my getting a 2/1 put me in the top 5% of the country and then being almost top of the year with top prizes in subjects yet not getting a first - I was probably pretty good, probably would have got a first today.

My own view is that once you get into your first graduate job as my children have now done (4 are lawyers, last 2 qualified last year) you prove yourself doing the work but it always helps in my profession to have high grades too and law can be very difficult and complicated so we certainly need very tough exams (50% of people failed in my day and fail today in the professional exams) in order to protect the public, similar to doctors - we cannot have substandard ones who will cut patients in half in operations.

I wonder if blind recruitment is here to stay though? I work in The public sector where there is university blind recruitment and it really restricts the ability of recruiters to look at job applicants holistically. Recruiters in the my part of the public sector do not have the time to devise and administer tests to essentially replicate knowledge about a candidate that could be gained from a quick glance at degree and institution. We are forced to ask vague prescriptive questions at interview without a natural discourse for the goal of 'inclusivity'. The system doesn't work and mistakes are being made in recruitment and it is horrible picking up the pieces. By being forced to market our career to lower tariff universities and pressure being applied by those with a an inclusivity agenda we actually reduce the standing and desirability of the career .....

This. Perhaps the move to uni blind recruitment is because it's a very short sighted way to do it and impressive results from 'prestigious' universities isn't a good indicator of what the employer wants in it's employees.

It would also appear that when an applicant went to university is also an important factor. It used to be that a First was fairly rare, around 10% when I went and got one, it was notable. Now nearly half get firsts and almost everyone has a first or a 2.1 (Grr, can't use a colon because MN brings up a stupid gif thing that won't go away).

So someone who has a first from 20 years ago is likely to be a higher achiever than someone who gained one recently (and yes they could well be applying for the same jobs, most people on our graduate trainee programme are 40/50 something career changers).

Your post is very interesting, @MargaretThursday

There is much to be said for completing a question, but we can no longer use a marking scheme such as you’ve described. Indeed, complete answers are mark if a very strong student.

I would say your DD is likely a more well rounded mathematician than you. She may have a greater store of accessible knowledge for the workplace. All of this is significant.

However you endured, and in some instances excelled at, much more challenging exams. You had to synthesise knowledge in a way that DD did not . It seems to me that this skill is also important in the workplace, partly in solving technical problems but in many other ways as well, and is less available to YP. You may also be able to do more creative maths than DD and this can be significant also. And you know how to not panic, a skill many YP have no experience with.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. For the day to day requirements of the job DD’s training may be better but in a crunch yours may have more to offer.

@poetryandwine That does not explain why firsts can now be 40% on some courses though. Fewer people went to uni in 1970 but the firsts awarded was barely 5%. Less quite often. So how have we ended up at multiples of that? Also at what are very low tariff unis. These dc would not get a 2:1 at an elite university do how can employers trust anythjng.

@mids2019 I would say your HR dept is failing your organisation. If I’m blunt, if you had to make money, the luxury of inclusivity trumping getting the best staff would have to disappear. Of course there must be fairness in selection criteria, so all info is reasonably included and then weighted. You should always have selection tests to see which candidates are stronger for your type of work if you are not looking at all the info available to you. However HR wasting effort on ticking their own inclusivity box, is in effect, excluding good candidates. It is ludicrous and costly - presumably to the state. This comment is based on you saying you don’t test. If tests were devised that worked, then university blind might not matter. However my DD is saying the same issues are arising where she works and it’s causing problems. HR should focus on not discriminating but that doesn’t mean unsuitable candidates must be considered if they don’t meet reasonable thresholds.

When I was at university in the 1980s it was extremely easy to "question spot" by looking at past papers and analysing what major themes had not come up in the past four or five years. I got some excellent final grades by working very hard on a very few topics that probability told me would be on the list of essay questions.

Recruiters in the my part of the public sector do not have the time to devise and administer tests to essentially replicate knowledge about a candidate

There are plenty of off the shelf solutions - much cheaper to purchase those than recruit the wrong person.

I'm unsure why you would be asking about degree subject knowledge at interview though? Maybe some interview training as well!

@Ceramiq - oh absolutely- that's a perfectly legitimate (if risky) strategy. But there is a difference between that and students demanding little variation in questions from year to year and complaining if that isn't the case.

DH devised tests to test structural engineering knowledge of candidates. They had to talk through how they would approach the design and take account of the problems presented. Knowledge of basic design principles was displayed by most candidates but not always the ability to choose the best ones for the project. So some depth of knowledge but less breadth. Unfortunately problem solving and using the best solutions is not part of most degrees. In work it’s vital. However just asking questions at an interview would not accurately differentiate between candidates. For the professional exams, exactly this knowledge is required. Choose how you would design a structure and, critically, why.

Degree subject knowledge is vital in some areas of work where safety is important. However using it effectively is another matter.

@TizerorFizz

It's not certainly necessarily about not interviewing and valuing that but having the option to have an I researching view of the candidate with all the relevant information. An interview can give you a snapshot of a candidate but other information including academic success add to the recruitment process.

Maybe I am a bit jaded because I have seen a recruitment process that seems to prevent candidates shining and making it extremely hard to differentiate between candidates and this has lead to recruitment errors which have to be dealt with through performance management which is awful for everyone.

There have been noises for some time in my sector that low tariff universities are being biased against and everything should be done to prevent bias. Unfortunately there are some senior people that think this involves tipping the scales so that the extra academic rigour of some degrees doesn't count.

The organisation is healthcare I e. the NHS and so there isn't really the pressure to make profit and as a huge public sector employer inclusivity is a powerful ideology but to my understanding has suffered from unintended consequences.

There seems to be intense lobbying by local universities for trusts to take on Thier graduates in the interests of fairness. I have been at meetings where senior people have lauded the fact we employ fewer RG grads and thus is viewed as success. I just don't agree with this approach and have seen some the consequences.

I agree with @Words on this, @Ceramiq !

Very true, @TizerorFizz

Effectively deploying what you’ve learnt during your degree programme is sometimes very challenging even for students who are strong on paper. And sometimes it comes easily to those with a more pragmatic, less academic type of talent.

I could be wrong but I think having to cultivate more independence during their studies (in the olden days) helped with this

@mids2019 I concur with you. It’s something some very large employers might do at the edges (to keep certain stats up) but mid sized employers really want the best and don’t want to waste time and money getting recruitment wrong. No one is fair to anyone by making recruitment mistakes. I agree: who wants to get rid of people? It’s expensive and costs more in the long run. You have to cover the work not done and recruit again.

I was HR qualified 35 years ago and the goal was always the best candidate for the job. Not supporting or dismissing any university but making sure the fit was accurate. That was the theory! After I left I very much found the LA I had worked for was doing the same as you allude to, except getting anyone out took forever! I listed to friends who were recruiting who took on board ridiculous aspects of a person when employing them and clearly the better candidates were not being favoured. It’s utterly dismal find this. I’m still of the opinion anyone recruiting should ensure best fit using all info available and without bias towards any university. Definitely staying within the law though, Devise fairly simple tests to differentiate and mark fairly against agreed criteria. Going back to the basics of good recruitment matters for everyone.

@Ceramiq my strategy of second-guessing the topics in the 80s was a spectacular fail 😳. After a decade of similar-ish questions with a particular format it was All Change. Cue a whole hall of students sighing, exchanging glances, laying down pens…

@mids2019 Are you recruiting to clinical roles? If so I'd suggest the problem probably sits with the accreditation bodies - RCN etc. not with the fact that the unis are non-RG (mature students, common with nursing type degrees, can usually only go to their local uni so it isn't a reflection of their academic ability), it's the fact that they're not being assessed adequately by NMC etc.

Regarding hiring, who on earth let Human Resource departments get so powerful? I actually think that many of them have a couple of air-fryer loads of chips on each shoulder, which is what contributes to their mealy-mouthed recruitment tactics. I remember reading on MN a poster saying she delighted in rejecting Oxbridge et al CVs.

Those multiple choice situational tests… plus CV blind - what a silly waste of time.

It is very difficult to trust degree classifications. I think probably the best candidates rise to the top when employers devise very careful screening tests. The one you described from DH sounds interesting.

But creating good tests and assessing them thoughtfully and objectively, particularly for a large employer, is a lot of work.

@TizerorFizz

Knowledge of basic design principles was displayed by most candidates but not always the ability to choose the best ones for the project.

As a layperson, knowing nothing about engineering studies, I nevertheless really wouldn't want to walk across a bridge or fly in a plane designed by such a person.

I note also that only 'most' students evidenced knowledge of basic design principles. They fail, then, surely?

I do hope the ones who couldn't discern the best option for the project were not awarded upper seconds.

I have in my mind's eye a cartoon of four different bridge designs. Three of which are comically and obviously ridiculous, and one of them resembles the Humber Bridge. Pick one!

@poetryandwine Yes. It can be a lot of work - but - getting rid of an employee, via evaluation of their performance, others taking the strain and feeling aggrieved and the cost of going through recruitment all over again, costs too. A lot. So tests that screen unsuitable candidates out are vital if you don’t use all the info you can ask for.

Many employers don’t expect grads to be the finished article. They know they will train them further but if that takes way too long and little improvement is observed it’s very expensive. DH found most grads had the basic learning but they were interested in the application of it. For them, it wasn’t wholly about uni attended (they rarely saw an Oxbridge or Imperial grad) it was about application of learning. I think the same applies in non stem too. What skills has the grad acquired and how can they apply them to the work situation? If that’s not possible to assess, employers fall back on all sorts of spurious attributes.