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 find it extraordinary that people make recruitment decisions based on the candidate's school. Surely their degree outcome is the main thing? If we are saying all privately educated people had an unfair advantage, would that not have been levelled out at university? I've done a lot of recruitment in my time and couldn't care less where they went to school
It doesn't necessarily level out by university, and there's a lot of talented students who don't make it to particular universities or don't have the resources to do the sort of internships that some industries look for.
There's systemic issues that are baked into many areas of education and certain careers.

The problem is the OP is more concerned about patting herself on the back for being more awesome than her colleagues, more insightful than the CEOs, and seems to think that any challenge to her unprofessional approach to recruitment only proves what a wonderful, inspirational person they are for taking on the establishment. It's all about their ego and got very little to do with widening participation and representation.

Great comment. That’s exactly right. It’s really rather straightforward to “sniff out” this kind of candidate.

It’s positive discrimination in favour of people who wouldn’t normally get a look in. And for all those saying what about the poor, poor WC kid that got into to Oxbridge - with graduates it’s easy to assess their background. BUT more importantly there AREN’T actually very many who DO go to Oxbridge.
I don’t discriminate against kids who got to Uni from a WC background.

Thankyou for that paragraph of amateur psychoanalysis of my supposed motivations.

More importantly, you agree with my aim, so I can live with any other concerns you have.

Yes I am reading this wondering who so obviously lacks ethics and what position they have in an advertising agency highly regarded across the world.

They are not in HR but are too coy (or bogus) to say which department.

If it’s creative she’d know it’s men that get to the top of that particular task and private school is no help. It’s a broad range of accents and backgrounds at the top (usually white male though)

If she is in accounts, there’s a slight chance a polished accent gets you luxury accounts but not really anymore, and since they admitted their agencies have worked with charities etc clients there really won’t care. And since they went on about needing understanding, you don’t really as no creative work in accounts.

Plus posting all day - they are not at work anyone with 25 years experience doesn’t sit and do work their day is booked out. So they are off and using precious holiday days to blow own trumpet on mn, rather than doing something nice.

Also the fake real estate language - sounding important just sounds really officious.

But mostly the normal entry position is so low down in terms of power in an interview, private school or not, that it’s really very poor character to laud this small amount of power if true.

MarshaBradyo
It's rather bizarre, funny but bizarre.

It's interesting, isn't it, that you're unable to engage with the actual salient points, so choose just to character assassinate the OP?

Sorry, that's directed to @MarshaBradyo .

Telegraph on the horrors of 'top' universities balancing admissions more fairly by taking candidates (with the same A level results, remember) from non-private schools: "A growing number of our brightest young people are feeling so undervalued and unwanted by this country that they are taking their talents – and their fees – abroad." Given the evidence of the current Tory Government, there's really nothing whatsoever to indicate that the 4% of those at private schools are in any way the 'brightest' the UK has to offer. It's toxic and its the wasted talent in the other 96% that should be considered.

Not really. I am addressing the salient points.

And yes it’s poor character because it’s unethical to be so prejudiced in an interview, especially when it’s an entry level position and the power imbalance is so great.

If you think it stacks up go for it.

It's interesting, isn't it, that you're unable to engage with the actual salient points, so choose just to character assassinate the OP?
Not sure who that's to, but I've talked throughout the thread about the problems of systemic inequality, importance of recruitment processes, widening participation, the importance of initiatives at school and university level to widen access to certain careers, and that there's a place for recruitment policies that actively seek to improve representation.

I don't think it's right that single employee with a chip on their shoulder should be binning applications because they have ideological views about private schools. It's unprofessional and what's particularly concerning is that someone claiming to be senior and successful takes any challenge as prove of their own brilliance.

Sorry, that's directed to @MarshaBradyo
Cross posted with this. 🙂 sorry.

I agree with you anyway 😀

Nice try, but your understanding of the structure of ad agencies is somewhat out of date. "Real Estate" - perhaps not familiar with London/UK?

Anyway, after all that ad hominem sleuthing, would you care to offer a POV on the actual issue?

I already have.

You are behaving unethically, any HR department or senior person hiring needs to be above board. The process should be shared across the company and since you are not doing this but sharing on mn instead it’s not approved.

The rest is just my thoughts because you seem unable to say which department you represent (some really don’t favour private, more white males succeeding - and this is actually something that is known in the sector and some agencies are trying to address it) and it doesn’t stack up with working in London agencies.

in my experience privately educated graduates tell you quite quickly about their school. That combined with their accents and their internships at art galleries, Google, mummy’s law firm, or their gap years in Peru, or their experiences building villages in whatever African country are give always.

the WC kids who get into even very good unis often ‘lack’ extra curricular experiences, music grades, certain sports because they either got a scholarship to a private school ( rare) but couldn’t afford to do any extras or they were state educated where the extra curricular stuff was more modest ( maybe a DOE, or being in the school footy team) .

@thedancingbear not squealing at all. I pointed out that I don't take their school into account. I have no idea whether any given school is good or bad (other than famous ones). Im genuinely surprised people are so interested in candidates' schools.

It's not that I am "unable" to do so, it's that I am choosing not to do so. Rest assured, I'm very familiar with all departments in major agencies. You are correct about the predominance of males in creative. My original post referenced "some roles, at least" if you recall.

Ok. My daughter comes from a single parent family. She is 18 and until 2 years ago I just earned under the national average. Her dad isn’t involved and never paid anything towards her costs.

She did extra curricular activities. She also has signed up at Uni for a scheme that will be travelling abroad all expense paid.

An interviewer should never be asking for stories of personal trauma or resilience. No one, at interview should be offering those stories. And how would previous trauma prove resilience m. Trauma impacts people in different ways.

Are you suggesting a pupil who went to private school, but whose (for example) parent died, should be rated higher in interview than someone whose childhood was fine. Not exceptional but fine? Because losing a parent in your formative years is worse?

The ‘top 5%’ won’t automatically not know about cheaper products. That’s a ridiculous thing to believe. Someone who knows a product can not necessarily know how to market it. We aren’t talking the difference between millionaires and those on the bread line.

You are dividing people and assuming certain behaviours for that group. And therefore able to ‘sniff them out’.

This is the point. I get op wanting to redress the balance. But the way they are doing it, doesn’t work. In my last post I pointed out op clearly doesn’t understand how reporting of disabilities works for recruitment, so would be surprised if they actually involved in any meaningful way. But also op admits their process does discriminate against disabled candidates and (potentially) non white candidates

My experience too.

I have a dream (fantasy maybe), that one day there won’t be private schools. Instead there will be well funded and resourced schools for everyone to attend with well paid staff and specialist teachers for PE and music. Classroom sizes of 24 maximum. People won’t feel compelled to buy in a catchment area, drive to different part of town or long for a private school.

OP, I just knew this thread would deliver classic mumsnet content as soon as I read the title. Congratulations!

I'm cackling at OP being called evil. Evil! I think you all need to have a word with yourselves and get a grip tbh. Your private school children will be just fine. As some of you even pointed out, the privilege you bought them will serve them well and they will walk into other jobs, which is exactly why OP is doing what she's doing.

Why don't those hiring, who agree with Op's views and what she has done, and also do it, just inform candidates at the point of application that applicants with a private school background are not welcome?
Why waste their time? It's cruel. And tell your boss your reasons for why you won't hire candidates who you feel don't deserve to be considered. Make a stand for what you believe in by speaking out.
If you TRULY believe that what you are doing is good, true, and virtuous, then be upfront about it, and brave....don't hide in the shadows and do this in secret.

Yes they do deserve a shot. Who said they didn't?

Waiting for sunlit uplands? They're behind you , pal, along with affordable university education.
Some circumstances you can't fix, but you certainly can fix crap schools, it's not that difficult.

You know why. It's because some, probably many, of those bosses, a lot of which will be from private school backgrounds themselves, won't play ball. Keeping it fifth column gets immediate results.

That said, I do think there is a lot of merit in also campaigning for broader societal change in this respect.