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?

No, I don't know why. If I felt so strongly about something, and felt something unjust was going on, I WOULD speak out to my boss - whether they played ball or not. Are you ashamed of what you are doing? If you are not, there is absolutely no reason to go 'fifth column' or sabotage young people going for what is very likely their first job interviews, in secret.

And if you dislike private school types so much, why are/were you even working for them? Why even be part of that system?

I think the fact that she knows what she's doing is naughty - it's the whole point of the OP and the thread - shows she understands recruitment processes.

And I think it's clear that she doesn't give a fuck what pro-privilege types like you think of what she's doing. Neither do I.

I agree. Working class people should fuck off out of advertising, law, accountancy, politics etc. altogether.

Jesus, give me strengh.

‘Very senior, but doesn't understand recruitment processes’

oh please. Anyone who thinks recruitment processes are neutral needs to give their head a good wobble.
Our new assistant in the dept happens to be the daughter of one of our VPs in our global company. Was she the best candidate for the roll? Perhaps, but she’s not from the U.K. and came here to ‘study’ for a year and then wanted to stay and somehow has landed herself this job despite the fact that she would have need a specialist visa from us to take the role. An entry level asst role. Which she, the VPs daughter, is apparently so much more suited for that no U.K. candidate was better.
My new Director used to work with our CEO years ago at another firm. He’s the 4th white male recruited from that same firm in the last 18 months. They all worked with the CEO. Is THAT a coincidence? This is a big industry, it’s not like we’re pulling from a small pool.
connections matter. Some more than others.

I think the fact that she knows what she's doing is naughty - it's the whole point of the OP and the thread - shows she understands recruitment processes.

And I think it's clear that she doesn't give a fuck what pro-privilege types like you think of what she's doing. Neither do I.

Funny how I can post a range of things with lots about the problems of systemic privilege, the need to widen participation, the importance of appropriate recruitment processes, the need to make changes long before the point someone applies for a job, and still it becomes you're pro privilege.

It's hilarious that some posters on here seem to think that wanting meaningful systemic change but being against random people on ideological crusades equals being pro privilege/a Tory/ a sign you're defensive about your private education/ a sign you want to buy your child privilege 😂

Not at all. But it just comes across as two-faced.
Working side by side with colleagues and bosses whom you secretly hold such contempt for.

oh please. Anyone who thinks recruitment processes are neutral needs to give their head a good wobble
I don't believe they're neutral.
I'm in favour of systemic change at many levels.

I don't believe that anyone involved in recruitment in a company should be arrogant enough to decide that's their platform for their ideological gripes.

Op if you are on the receiving end of what you feel is unfair hiring I do have a huge amount of sympathy, getting into the sector initially is tough. The power imbalance top to bottom is a lot and getting that first chance is hard.

But your op has reminded me of an entry level position where two people were vying for one place. One was overly confident, the other not (no idea of schools but just that confidence someone mentioned), due to some pushy behaviour it went to the hard working but less confident.

I'm a partner in a London law firm, more than 50% of the partners are privately educated. I am not.

I don't hold contempt for the people, who are a fantastic, talented, driven group (though there is a handful of arseholes). I do think too many benefit from unearned privilege. On a structural level, that grinds my gears.

By your rationale, I am 'two faced' and should go and seek employment more suited to my station. Your posts are embarrassing and contemptible.

I’m WC by birth, MC apparently now because of my career - well I suppose my kids are- so I now know a lot of MC parents. The chatter amongst many of those who’ve gone private seems to be whether or not to put their DC in a state 6th form or keep them private. Opinion divided on whether or not their D.C. will now ‘suffer’ somehow for being privately educated…
the proper posh ones - mainly people I work with - are private all they way and don’t give a damn because they know their kids will use connections to get jobs.

‘Not at all. But it just comes across as two-faced.
Working side by side with colleagues and bosses whom you secretly hold such contempt for.’

I have great respect for many of my colleagues, the smart hard-working ones.

I have less respect for the ones who are working to, quite literally, have something to do ( their income from family/ trust funds far outstrips their salaries) or the ones who are elevated beyond their ability and experience because of connections, accent or public school self confidence.

@LolaSmiles Who hands out the permission to take direct action in society?There are rules for discrimination and those who feel discriminated against can use them. But why attack as 'random', an individual who can personally do something about the overrepresentation of privately educated people in public and professional life and chooses to take that action? What comes across in so many of these posts is an overwhelming sense of entitlement to MAKE the rules.

This thread is quite entertaining. It seems to me that the ones who are outraged at OP fall broadly into two camps:

1. People who are privately educated/have privately educated children and are outraged that anyone should ever discriminate against them remove some of their privilege
2. People who want things to be fair and equal in all ways but are dreadfully naive about the real world.

I also work with law firms. And you see it all the time. The white, posh, men getting promoted. And when you look at the detail, it's often because they're doing more hours and working on more complex/high profile cases so you think, "well, they are outperforming so yes, they've had a leg up in terms of gaining those skills in the first place, but the result is they ARE better and we're a commercial organisation and ultimately, it's about the numbers/profits."

But dig just a LITTLE deeper and you'll see a lot more. How do these rich, white, posh men get allocated to these cases? Oh, wait, allocations are done boy other, older, rich, posh, white men who instinctively choose the younger versions of themselves to work on these cases. [Some law firms are attempting to change this by using specialist teams to allocate work or even AI-based programs. This is having mixed success because many many partners are HOWLING about it]

Let's look at more data. So, they're on the high profile cases so again, maybe there's an element of they know the right people. But once they're there, they're doing the work, putting in the hours and achieving, right? So they DO deserve it? Except.... look at the data a bit more carefully and voila, more info comes to light. They do more hours because a) they're working on the really big cases that have huge budgets and require lots of hours vs the types of work where clients are very careful about billing and/or the profit margins are lower and b) they are less likely to have caring responsibilities at home so they can stay late/come in early and c) they have more time because they're less likely to be taking on the non-billable work at the office.

I don't dispute that lots of people who are privileged also work insanely hard. doesn't change the massive leg up they have right out of the gate.

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

yup!

I can see law has different attributes

But advertising mostly favours ‘male genius’ for top creative roles regardless of schooling, usually white though. And accounts favours good looking younger females again regardless of schooling.

It’s different to law as it’s more about selling image and that includes employees. There might be a one off where a client’s dc gets w/e as a favour but private school in general isn’t as useful as it would be in say, law.

I think I hit a nerve! I wasn't really addressing you in particular to be honest. It was just a general post to all who endorse the Op's views and who do or have done the same in the interview process. How would your (as in a generic your) privately educated colleagues or bosses feel if they knew that you were discriminating against private school candidates in the interview process and trying to 'level the playing field'? Have you considered being upfront with them about what you (generic) are doing? Have you discussed the issues of this imbalance with your privately educated colleagues and stated why it is irksome to you?

‘It’s different to law as it’s more about selling image and that includes employees. There might be a one off where a client’s dc gets w/e as a favour but private school in general isn’t as useful as it would be in say, law.’

cough. Bullshit!

I work in a similar creative, selling industry. Wealthy kids have a massive leg up because they have connections, can afford to intern or take shitty paid entry level jobs, have the ‘creative’ background to get in.
Most senior people are men - as the law poster says they ‘mentor’ younger versions of themselves. They put them on big projects and deals, they then look like they’re ‘putting in the hours’ or work and get further opportunities.
and on and on it goes.

I don't give a gnat's chuff what you, or they, would think, to be honest. Fwiw, a number of them would be quietly supportive. Others would be outraged, but fuck them.

I don't really understand this comment. Are you saying that private schools are not a thing in advertising agencies? Because I don't think that's true although my background is comms, not advertising.

I'm always amazed at how PR and marketing agencies are filled with lots of women, and a relatively good mix of backgrounds (although in my sub sector of comms - financial and professional services - almost all white) and yet.... the big bosses of these firms or teams I meet are almost always privately educated white men. Amazing how they just land up at the top even when they're not in the majority at the bottom. Such a coincidence. So weird. Very difficult to understand.

My parents moved countries, worked their fingers to the bone, scrimped, saved and went without to send my siblings and I to a private school. They were still paying our fees off for several years after we finished. My siblings and I worked equally hard to get good marks at school so we could get into good universities. We all worked several jobs while we were at Uni as we had to live away from home and support ourselves. After all of that, to think any of us could have been denied employment by a prejudiced individual like you horrifies me. We had no connections, no easy entree into a job, no family business to join. We all worked hard to get a foot in the door, and then worked our way up in our chosen fields. You AB incredibly U, as well as closed minded and prejudiced. You've done a great disservice to your employer by not selecting the best candidate for the role.

It’s not my experience. I definitely wasn’t connected when I started and found myself with an agency full of mostly twenty year olds. It was young, a few in their 40s, I have worked in a fair few places in London and private has never been the dominating factor.

Male for creative director usually not overly polished etc, younger female for accounts. A broad range of accents and backgrounds and but mostly white.

I think just because privilege may have made someone the better candidate (although it’s hard to untangle different influences on an individual) doesn’t mean they’re not the better candidate. And that’s why we should do - hire the best candidate, not impose our personal dislikes and favouritism.

There’s no doubt Mc and private school people are more likely to go to university for example. But that doesn’t mean you should hire a less qualified person because you associate qualifications with privilege.

I am wc and state school educated but work in an industry where that’s unusual. I don’t think anyone should discriminate against my private school educated colleagues (many of whom have other factors such as race or sex that make them less privileged). Best person for the job not who you happen to favour.

if we want to address disadvantage of state school pupils or other groups, it has to be done at an early stage. Just offering a job to someone who is an inferior candidate based on your personal prejudice isn’t equality.