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 know HR AI selection engines can have issues but at least they make an attempt at ruling out biases.
Although it's a fair point some make about the opposite happening too, two wrongs don't make a right.

FFS.
How ignorant do you have to be to think that all
Oxbridge students went to private schools?!
WTF is wrong with Oxbridge students who went to state schools?!

The vitriol and personal attacks on this thread are a perfect example of the lengths privilege will go to to defend itself.

You're very arrogant. If I were your boss and found this out, I'd be managing you out.

I've had a bit of a think about this and I'm hoping it's just trolling but, just in case it isn't, I still don't agree with your policy.

Reason being that the people you reject who have the rich family and massive hand up will still be fine so the only people it has a negative effect on are the ones who had that education through things like scholarships and bursaries, armed forces, or grandparents skimping and saving to send them because they want better for the next generation than they had. Basically you're only actually hurting the people who don't benefit from the thing you're trying to discourage.

There are also a shipload of people who go to good state schools and get massive family support. Their families can choose to buy the house in the catchment area, tutor them like mad, and build the social capital. They also have the financial support to do things like work experience and unpaid internships. Most of the most well off people I've known have done this for their kids, especially the ones who had rich parents themselves.

In my personal experience, the people who have the family background to support them will manage whatever school they go to. The more generations behind you that know how to do that the easier it is. I know my kids will have great chances - we paid to live in a grammar catchment area, we put the effort in to develop them, and we have the contacts and resources to get them good work experience. Those are the sort of kids you'll be giving opportunities to with your policy.

Frankly if you want to really help you need to target social mobility. Campaign to recruit from deprived schools, visit them and be a role model for the kids who would never dream they could work in that industry or earn well, mentor them, get your company to sponsor paid work experience, and so much more. You can still hire people from more diverse backgrounds but make sure it's taking targeted positive action rather than discrimination based in flawed stereotypes.

I think you’re doing a great thing tbh

Beyond silly.

The silver lining is that the people you reject simply because you have a massive chip on your shoulder won't have to work with you and put up with your nonsense.

Love this op. And lol at all the butthurt private school parents. You really need to get your heads out of your arse if you don't think you and your kids are in an Incrediby privileged position and you cannot see it any other way because you are so blinded by your privilege!!! Hopefully more employers will do this op. Its about time.

Isn’t it funny how angry folks get when the balance of privilege tips the other way? 🙄

Oh the irony...

The OP believes she's changing the world, but actually she's just harnessing the talent of her favoured few to bust their asses selling shit to make someone else rich, very likely people from privileged backgrounds or people from other countries...

The vitriol and personal attacks on this thread are a perfect example of the lengths privilege will go to to defend itself
Not all of us challenging the OP are wealthy or privately educated.

It's possible to challenge the OP's arrogance, poor recruitment behaviour, and oversimplification of a complex issue AND believe more should be done to make more professional roles diverse and representative.

It's more amusing how many posters seem to think if you don't approve of a one woman ideological crusade you must be privileged/wealthy/privately educated/privately educating your children

The vitriolic personal attacks on this thread have convinced me I am doing the right thing.

To those claiming what I am doing is “unfair”, “arrogant”, the product of a “God-complex” and so on, consider the feelings and life chances of state school educated pupils. 93.6% of English kids do not go to a private school, yet the 6.4% who do continue to dominate many areas of employment and public life.

If more people in positions to do so start positive discrimination practices in favour of the state educated in the workplace, hopefully some progress can hopefully be made.

After the attention race and gender have received recently, it’s the next barrier to a better country we need to smash.

OP
I don't think anyone is saying the dominance of privately educated people in many areas is ok.

The criticism is of your methods and refusal to consider that you might actually be a bit unreasonable in the way you're going about it does make you come across as arrogant and with a chip on your shoulder. The fact that challenge only solidifies how awesome you think you are is odd.

There are many ways to improve representation and diversity that don't involve one employee binning applications if she doesn't like someone's school.

I fully agree with the poster saying that op discriminating in this way is no different to the person who discriminates because of colour, race, sexual orientation, religion etc

Hopefully more employers will do this op. Its about time.

Employers choose the best candidates for the. Money is scarce so they generally don't waste money on hiring unsuitable applicants, purely for social engineering purposes!

Hopefully more employers will do this op. Its about time.

Employers choose the best candidates for the job. Money is scarce so they generally don't waste money on hiring unsuitable applicants, purely for social engineering purposes!

If more people in positions to do so start positive discrimination practices in favour of the state educated in the workplace, hopefully some progress can hopefully be made.

Why would a private company want to discriminate like this and employ candidates that will perform less well?!

why do you assume all companies couldn’t fill their vacancies with state school educated candidates who are as good, and in some instances better, than privately educated ones?

with a little more effort it could be done.

I think the point is they don’t actually perform less well - they just don’t get a chance as lack the connections and polish mean they don’t get hired. Which doesn’t go to performance.

Plus something like advertising it’s not technical brilliance they’re after surely more diverse work force will improve performance- they are trying to appeal to the woman in the street after all. But I’m state educated and spent my working life pretty much exclusively with the privately educated and sadly have experienced lots of shockingly snobby comments as they assume I’m privately educated too.

I think it's fine. If everyone was doing it it would be a problem but you're just doing a tiny bit to redress the balance.

They do.

The op and this thread seems to be about positively discriminating against a candidate because of their schooling:

"Sometimes I have rejected them even when they clearly would have done a better job than a comprehensive school educated alternative."

They absolutely do and have done for years! Look at the stats! Dh and I were the only state educated ones out of 50 ish magic circle lawyers. Early 2000s and my school was raised at my interview…