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?

@Words No. There’s such a huge shortage of engineers, they do get work. Just not with a business that wants to make money. The route a grad should take is aiming to be a chartered engineer. The problem is working out who might make that. Plenty of fully MIStructE engineers are highly educated beyond MEng but many mid sized employers never see them. They want to recruit grads and train them to become Chartered. As huge numbers fail this exam (typically at least half) many employers won’t want to waste time training the untrainable. If everyone recruited is not good enough, how does the company progress?

By the time anyone gets to bridge design, the engineers checking everything will be Chsrtered and experienced. The challenge is getting them there.

@TizerorFizz , thank you. A really serious situation for the U.K. then, now it's (I imagine) impossibly hard to recruit, say, German grads to these positions.

Perhaps but I still don't think it's a great assessment format. Personally, for both myself and for my children, I have always rated those exams where they had to apply deep knowledge to new problems in a reasonably tight time frame eg translations, textual analysis, visual analysis, complex economic problems with tricky political tradeoffs etc!

@Words DHs business recruited from all over the world. Still has Polish engineers but regularly had South Africans, Romanians, Germans. Italians, Dutch, Indian etc. Not all were intending to qualify here but they were excellent employees. However you cannot design important structures with engineers who only have degrees. Professional qualifications are vital.

When applying for Masters Programmes it's not blind recruitment. Nor is it when applying for internships. It's only some organisations that use blind recruitment, but even then it would be fairly obvious if a degree came from Oxbridge because all degrees, even STEM, are MA (not BA or BSc). I know some Scottish unis use MA for undergrad degrees as well, but any job will ask for evidence of your degree (certificate or transcripts) and Oxbridge degrees also state Oxon or Cantab. The degrees are called tripos, so this would be on any references - plus the references would be emailed from the unis anyway and surely it would be obvious what uni a referee worked at as they need to state their role in relation to the applicant. Also, if you had received a college award or scholarship, or held any roles within the university like Sports President, any sort of Treasurer etc, Cambridge / Oxford Union role, College Welfare Officer, Chorister or any role in any Society etc, you would include this in your CV and it would be obvious by the name if it was an Oxbridge-related achievement.

A visual of the data.
Imperial and Northumbria have what you might class as normal lines, I think.
UEA and Surrey have severe drop-offs. Will leave you to guess at the reason.
Hull and Hertfordshire have significant increases and then maintained their covid spike.
'18-19 I would class as 'correct'. 33%+ would be considered high.

So, like when Leicester won the league, you can't really say that 'a year' is the norm.

Image. Not sure why it made it sensitive.

@outofmexico for most of the blind schemes my DD has applied for this year (Teaching, Civil Service and Big 4), they've made a big effort to blind. The Big 4 didn't ask for any details on her school or uni qualifications or work experience/position of responsibilities even at final interview. CS required certain degree modules (no marks, no uni names) but this was done by independent team and not shared with subsequent interviewers.

@PearlStork that’s really interesting thank you. So it goes far beyond just place studied at. Can’t even discuss work experience, no grades etc ??

@Stilton65 Thats grossly unfair isn’t it?! What’s the point of doing anything then? Might as well not bother if no one asks you about it or even cares about it. My view is that all info is useful. How employers weight it is what matters.

@Stilton65 my DD has strong work experience so definitely worked this into some of her answers at final interviews but doesn't go to a top uni so wouldn't have name dropped institution. Out of 3 assessment centres each with 3 separate interviewers only one attempted to find out her institution.

No discussions of grades either. Offers have all been 2:1 or above (one 2:2 as they are keen on those who can teach maths). Two had their own knowledge based tests so no need for uni module grades.

Agree @TizerorFizz this seems extreme.

@PearlStork how did your DD feel about this?

@Stilton65 My DD has mixed feelings about blind recruitment. Appreciates that it gives her a more level playing field against those who are at top unis and recognises that relevant work experience not available to all so understands why they dont consider it. She wishes she'd spent more time practicing the various numeracy, verbal, spatial and situational judgement tests and presentation skills and less time trying to up her uni essay marks. I suspect given her time again she'd do a degree apprenticeship and get into the world of work from school. She's smart but more practical than academic.

Very interesting insight @PearlStork. My ds has been rejected for a couple of internships after the initial assessments. Do you or does anyone know where they can get practical help or advice on doing these please?

@MrsPatmore DD thinks practise makes a difference and learning from feedback and others experience (her friend who is top of the year got a lowish score on one test so DD knew that she needed to really work on that - she delayed sitting until last minute possible and took her time as it wasn't timed). Her uni had banks of tests you could access for practise. DD thinks experience of applying for internships helped for final year real thing (she has been more successful this year) so that should help your DS.

Uni recommended applying for early schemes even if not interested in to get experience of tests (just withdraw if you get thru). I think like most things there are small margins and an element of luck.

Since when is being at an elite university a bad thing? Surely most employers know it took a lot to get there? It’s not a level playing field in life. As for not even looking at work experience. The mind boggles.

All the feedback I ever hear is that blind recruitment reduces diversity. The more focussed recruitment becomes on psychometric testing (which is about the only way to test candidates blind), the more likely it is to favour those candidates who have already passed through several élite filters.

It is a can of worms trying to be fair. Law paying people £500 a week for 2 week vacation schemes from which they they mostly choose trainee solicitors gives them 2 weeks to check all kinds of things and then the assessment day itself but you only get on that if you pass a heap of other tests before that including psych stuff too.

The one I thought most unfair for my son who was a very good postman for years) was failing to get a postman job last year as there were 72 psych questions and he obviously didn't have the right answers, whereas he already knows all the basics - how to drive the van, how to carry the bags, how to read an address, how to ensure the dogs don't bit off your finger. Anyway Royal Mail's loss and his new employer's gain I suppose. If instead they just called up the previous postal depot and spoke to his boss there they would probably have hired him but it doesn't work like that with the HR systems there.

I still remain of the view it does not matter too much as once you get into a first job and are good you tend to do fine in the next 40 years whereas if you are thick as a plank and always really lazy you won't last long anywhere.

Interested too in how these batteries of tests might work for those who are neurodivergent, given that it is all meant to be about diversity and inclusivity? My DD is at a top uni that was very hard to get a place at, but I am pretty sure that a battery of online tests under time pressure would not show her in her best light! As @TizerorFizz says, surely complete refusal to consider achievement to date alongside performance in interview and tests doesn't give a clear picture either?

On DS course at the LSE no one had received a first for more than 10 years.

@Isthiscorrect If undergrad, that’s odd. Here’s their own stats. First class outnumber 2:1.

@TizerorFizz his was a small cohort on a very specific course, most definitely not Economics or Law. Graduated 2018.

Well the above graph includes 17/18 graduations. They are not economics or law. They are the overall stats. So his course must have been a complete outlier.

Employers select for the qualities that they wish for in their employees in order to do a good job in the business they are in. The use of psychometric tests isn't about inclusion for neurodivergence but about inclusion for socio-economic groups who might otherwise be disadvantaged. The reality is that psychometric testing tends to increase élite recruitment rather than the opposite.