To think being prejudiced against the privately educated is OK

[EastLondonObserver]

I have spent 25 years working in the advertising industry at some of the most highly regarded agencies in the world. Most of these have been dominated (in certain roles, at least) by the privately educated who gained their entry to the industry through having personal/family contacts in it, were subbed by rich parents while working in low-paid or free internships to gain experience and had that empty confidence private schools instil.

Perfectly capable graduates educated comprehensive schools didn't get much of a look in. However a few managed to break through, including myself.

Consequently, throughout my career I have actively rejected almost all privately educated graduates applying for entry level positions. This runs into hundreds of applicants. I have managed to do this without being called out. Sometimes I have rejected them even when they clearly would have done a better job than a comprehensive school educated alternative. These were corporate companies - it made no meaningful difference to me if they were mildly less successful as a consequence. The only exception was one graduate educated at Harrow and Bristol. I gave him the job as an experiment. He was average at best.

I did this in the name of social justice: re-distributing opportunities away from those with unearned privilege.

Have I been unreasonable? Has anyone else done the same?

I can practically see you frothing from here, which I assume is also why your post is almost unintelligible.

it's just a fact that as a rule, private school people are more likely to have the qualifications and skills on day 1. That doesn't actually tell you anything about whether they'll be able to advance in the job, learn new skills etc. And certainly, someone without all those advantages may be ever so slightly less qualified but the very premise of this type of educational system is that overall, if there are two candidates, one privately/oxbridge educated and one not, there's a pretty good chance the former is going to appear to be the better candidate.

As I said from the beginning, I'm not entirely certain that the OP's approach is quite right, but I do see where she's coming from.

Presumably when your own children reach university age you will not be advising them to aim high even if they want to and you will be anticipating their CVS being discarded because you have been successful

Here's a counter argument: stop targeting state school kids to become dicks like you. Give everyone a chance.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

I agree my approach misses outliers. But the 'nuances' are mostly just that. The vast majority of private school pupils do not have special needs, are the kids of military families and the various other examples of small numbers of exceptions cited on this thread.

Pupils on scholarships do not always mean more diversity in the private sector either:

www.britsoc.co.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2021/april/scholarships-do-remarkably-little-to-make-private-schools-more-socially-inclusive-study-finds/

Given my colleagues (and other companies in the same sector) are heavily biased towards the privately educated, I have no moral qualms.

My Daughter went to a private school because she was attacked and seriously injured twice at her state school. They couldn't keep her safe. She wont write that on her CV though.

@NotLactoseFree ahh my mistake, there was me think we were having a reasonable discussion, but you decided to go to insults, I'll leave you to it.

It depends where you’re applying your measurement of privilege. Sink comp in a poor area or comp in a university city with a revolving door for local private school children - those examples are very different schools though essentially the same from the outside (I went to the former).

A standard comp and into Oxford where huge privilege is available in terms of contacts with industry, financial support in all sorts of ways from a likely rich college, the best teaching, best internships etc. Getting an Oxbridge offer is to a degree a case of luck given there are so many capable people who don’t get in every year. Could this be unearned privilege in a sense? I have a friend who was state school educated and had various legs up all the way and was by any measure immensely privileged but would pass your test.

I’d be interested in the finer print of your policy.

I had a boss who when faced with a pile of CVs told me to choose the Oxbridge one and bin the rest. I said no and pointed out that I wasn’t for a start…

so OP is sort of balancing out people like that 🤷‍♀️

I agree my approach misses outliers. But the 'nuances' are mostly just that. The vast majority of private school pupils do not have special needs, are the kids of military families and the various other examples of small numbers of exceptions cited on this thread
How do you know the applicant's history when you're busy patting yourself on your back?

My DC aren't in private education so I've not got any skin in the game and I teach in the state sector.

You have no idea what special needs someone had in childhood and adolescence

You will not be told whether the young adult in front of you had a private education due to an independent school being named on their EHCP

You'll not be told in an application where a child was moved to the private sector because of bullying that made it almost impossible to attend school.

You'll not be told that the application in front of you was written by someone who could only go private because grandparents and family members did all the could to offer some stability through a difficult situation.

You'll never be told on the application whether that candidate was awarded a scholarship or bursary

You'll never be told the price value of the houses in the 'good' state catchments

You'll not be told which of your applications come from children in military families who attended boarding school

You're either deluded, arrogant or on the wind up because nobody smart enough to hold a senior position would be as clueless as you.

The OP is not doing a terrific job of advertising her own abilities and judgement.

I don't like the intolerance that seems to be fashionable, treating people with certain attributes as interchangeable members of a homogeneous group and claiming moral authority to do so. I prefer to treat people as individuals.

But I expect this is a goady post to liven up a wet Wednesday not a serious reflection from a recruitment professional.

I’m glad HR departments exist. I’m sure there are random unethical and arrogant hirers in many cases but if the op has been working for highly regarded agencies they will have an HR department.

I take it the op is outside that, at what stage they are binning CVs (as they come in? As who else has seen them and asked what happened to x or y).

Sounds bad or made up.

This is a great point.

The privately educated often turn up with a polish and confidence (not to mention less strong regional accents which is another area of prejudice in London-based agencies). On the surface they might appear more capable, especially if they have a contact in the industry and can say a few buzzwords they've been told will hit the right buttons.

But over time, a disproportionate number I've worked with have turned out to be average at best. Advertising, as I mentioned upthread, requires an intuitive feel for how 'ordinary' people think and behave. In my experience many privately educated graduates lack understanding or empathy for who they need to appeal to. Yet, do to surface polish, nepotism and others hiring 'like them' they get jobs in the sector.

They do have HR departments who often pay lip service to diversity whilst reinforcing the very biases they claim to want to eradicate.

So true.

Which department are you? it’s a curious mix of officious language and low ethics.

I’m sure you have a day off work today for this thread, otherwise quiet day.

Not insults, no.

I do agree with OP though. Privately educated have endless advantages and we do need to find ways to mitigate for these so that we don't lose out on highly competent, potentially outstanding candidates. It is complex, and OP's solution is a bit of a blunt instrument, but I get it.

The number of posh bosses I've had over the years. Very good buttering up the clients (and actually, an important and useful skill so I'm not knocking it) but often totally clueless about the actual work. Never ceased to amaze me how they'd be in the top job without ever having learnt how to do the job.

The tide might be turning now however. I also work in agencies (not advertising) and I've noticed more and more that clients get quite irritated with these t types. They don't want the posh smarmy guy who is good at knowing how to take them to nice restaurants. They want the effective, efficient, creative mid level person who "gets shit done." Especially when they're paying top dollar and/or budgets are constrained.

I'm an ex recruiter. If I found out you were doing this I'd be removing you from hiring! It's NEVER ok to discriminate. How do you think the state school candidates would feel if they found out you were treating them differently or assuming they wouldn't make it on their own?

Why aren't you putting your energies into championing and mentoring people within your organisations.

Why aren't you championing blind screening to remove these prejudices.

But you're not going to be convinced that what you're doing is wrong

Finally!

"Advertising, as I mentioned upthread, requires an intuitive feel for how 'ordinary' people think and behave. In my experience many privately educated graduates lack understanding or empathy for who they need to appeal to."

That's not positive discrimination as you claim to be doing, that's hiring the best candidate for the job. You would send Inigo and Aramintha to shmooze condé nast. You're fake.

Your selection process design could simply not take into account academic achievement/university.?
Use other selection methods. Assess and select best candidate and then look at their academic records out of curiosity. Much fairer. I'm all for the underdog but!!

"Finally" - lol - I posted this several pages ago for the first time.

I can practically see you frothing from here, which I assume is also why your post is almost unintelligible.

Not insulting no? Funny I wouldn't consider saying that to someone I wasn't trying to insult.

I’m an Oxbridge grad. I’m also a first generation immigrant who grew up in the midlands in a flat shared by another family while I attending a very average comp, I then only avoided going into care by moving out and being completelt independent as a 17 year old. I was only able to attend as I was given a very generous bursary, I couldn’t have afforded to attend elsewhere if I hadn’t gained my place.

Sorry for being privileged.

My writing is awful in that post 🤣

Yes you did. So stop making it about being a social warrior.