Page 6 | Degree classifications and uni blind recruitment

Stilton65 · 2025-01-23T17:37:40+00:00

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 [[https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/top-class-degree-awards-drop-two-thirds-uk-universities 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?

Ceramiq · 29/01/2025 05:50

Xenia · 28/01/2025 18:48

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.

Psychometric testing can also be about excluding people who are going to get bored on the job (and hence perhaps become troublemakers, union stalwarts etc). It's not just about performing at the top end of the bell curve!

amigafan2003 · 29/01/2025 09:29

Stilton65 · 28/01/2025 19:02

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?

Having done a fair few DEI audits at some big companies, I don't care what they say, they don't want neurodivergent people working for them, and the psychometric tests they use ensure this is the case.

Original poster

Stilton65 · 29/01/2025 10:32

Thanks @amigafan2003 that is the impression I am beginning to get. I knew about uni blind recruitment but this thread has been an eye opener in terms of psychometric testing now taking precedence over any other measures of achievement. This would undoubtedly discriminate against many who are neurodivergent - regardless of their achievements to date and ability to do the job.

OP posts:

Ceramiq · 29/01/2025 11:12

Stilton65 · 29/01/2025 10:32

Thanks @amigafan2003 that is the impression I am beginning to get. I knew about uni blind recruitment but this thread has been an eye opener in terms of psychometric testing now taking precedence over any other measures of achievement. This would undoubtedly discriminate against many who are neurodivergent - regardless of their achievements to date and ability to do the job.

However unfair it may seem, employers do need to create teams that work for them and their business goals and psychometric tests are calibrated for that. I think it's always best to take psychometric tests in the spirit in which they are conceived - if you don't get through to the other side, you aren't suited to the business and that's fine for both of you.

Xenia · 29/01/2025 13:43

For law firms the Watson Glazer test seems to be the most common (I have never done one) https://www.careers.ox.ac.uk/article/how-to-prepare-and-pass-the-watson-glaser-test.
My son got a new job last year (in house solicitor) and I think there were about 4 stages including a practical legal issue where he had to amend a long contract which I thought was a bit of hard effort for a relatively low paid law job but he must have done okay at it and then other 3 stages were just interviews with various people (but not psych test in his case).

The advantage of law firms having you working for 2 weeks for pay on a vac scheme is that they can have loads of people working with you and seeing how you are and how you interact with partners, the receptionists, other potential trainees working in groups etc

However as I say to all the family I am probably the worst person to give any help on any of this as I had to make 139 applications to London law firms and have 25 interviews before getting my one offer - all during year 3 of my law degree. 40 years on I still see that as the biggest break of my career. I have no idea what the last interview had that I did not have at the others. May be just luck or practice.

Ceramiq · 29/01/2025 14:46

Xenia · 29/01/2025 13:43

For law firms the Watson Glazer test seems to be the most common (I have never done one) https://www.careers.ox.ac.uk/article/how-to-prepare-and-pass-the-watson-glaser-test.
My son got a new job last year (in house solicitor) and I think there were about 4 stages including a practical legal issue where he had to amend a long contract which I thought was a bit of hard effort for a relatively low paid law job but he must have done okay at it and then other 3 stages were just interviews with various people (but not psych test in his case).

The advantage of law firms having you working for 2 weeks for pay on a vac scheme is that they can have loads of people working with you and seeing how you are and how you interact with partners, the receptionists, other potential trainees working in groups etc

However as I say to all the family I am probably the worst person to give any help on any of this as I had to make 139 applications to London law firms and have 25 interviews before getting my one offer - all during year 3 of my law degree. 40 years on I still see that as the biggest break of my career. I have no idea what the last interview had that I did not have at the others. May be just luck or practice.

Extended interviews, which is what vac schemes are, are quite common in professional services firms. They work both ways - it's a good way for both applicant and firm to try to work out whether they will get on, though in the experience of our DC vac scheme working conditions were an awful lot better than working conditions on the job.