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?

Indeed!
She certainly doesn't want to listen to others' opinions and I haven't seen much evidence of her seeing the other side of the argument.
I suspect she is posting because she wants to boast about how 'successful' she is and about how she's some sort of modern-day Robin Hood.

Generally the people who need to tell you how successful they are are not the successful ones.

She sounds quite successful to me and, unlike many of the people having a go, she did it off her own back rather than having it paid for by her parents.

Must be annoying paying to jump the queue only to have someone jump ahead of you, but for free.

oh well if she sounds successful then she must be!

I don’t think there is much ‘frothing’ - more just people pointing out that what the OP is doing wouldn’t pass muster with an employer if they knew.

I think this is a fitting description of the OP ‘He
held a position of little or no authority….. He was a lowly grease-monkey, a nothing, a piece of sputum floating in the toilet bowl
of life. Yet he could never come to terms with a lifetime of under-achievement. His absurdly inflated ego would never permit it. He's
like the security guard on the front gate who considers himself head of the corporation….’

This is the internet so you have no more evidence for your snide insinuation that op than I do for taking her at face value.

Only one of us is actually engaging with the issues that the OP has raised though.

Says there is no frothing, then posts some really appalling quote.

Still not frothing tho.

And it’s Red Dwarf 😀😀

Only by your definition

I think it could be referred to by some as positive discrimination, but it is definitely discrimination.
I am on the same page as you as to your reasoning, I suffered in my early career to missing out on roles for the reasons you mention (parents know somebody etc). And these were big companies who shout about being inclusive etc, but the grad schemes were pretty much all full of privately educated kids who didn't get in fairly.
However you shouldn't be rejecting applicants who are privately educated but have no connection to the company - you should still be giving them a chance.

Just goes to show how context is everything.

Well clearly private education gives children an advantage, on average, over children who aren’t privately educated. If it didn’t no-one would pay for it.

Can you imagine that there might be other reasons for parents choosing a great education for their children?

Others have made plenty of relevant points, pointing out why actively rejecting people, who are more suited for a job, simply based on their upbringing, is morally questionable.

She has not taken any of those points on board, so there's no point in me repeating them. Plus I have no interest in trying to persuade her she's wrong. People like her don't change their minds.

Here's some evidence for her not being successful:

1. Her repeatedly telling us how successful she is. In my experience, there's an inverse relationship between how much people talk about how successful they are and how successful they actually are.

2. The amount of time she seems to have to spend on this crusade. Successful, senior people in the ad industry are typically pretty busy with real work.
   But yet she has time to look up the school of each candidate she comes across, to see if it was fee paying, before deciding whether to reject them (I doubt she knows every fee-paying school in the country since there are thousands).

Or maybe she only does this with the tiny number of private schools she's heard of? Eton, Westminster etc.

If it's the latter, you need to up your game OP. Think how many have slipped through the net? I hope you're more thorough with your day job.

That’s not evidence.

Fucking hell, what an unpleasant post.

You've no valid points, so you just rip the guts out of the OP's character.

Froth froth froth.

She sounds quite successful to me and, unlike many of the people having a go, she did it off her own back rather than having it paid for by her parents.

If she's white and British-born and a native speaker of English then she had a certain amount of privilege.

If she went to university in the age of free fees then she had a certain amount of privilege.

If her parents availed of any of the benefits of living in the postwar British welfare state then she didn't actually pull herself up by her own bootstraps. Council housing and NHS services are examples, as are state schools, to say nothing of all the community organisations that enrich the lives of so many children, if she participated in any of them. All services paid for by the British taxpayer for the benefit of the nation as a whole...

I have cousins who are British born whose immigrant parents busted their asses to send them to private schools and on to Oxbridge. It's a pity their applications would be binned because of that.

My first point was 'anecdotal evidence' which, as the name implies, is still evidence.

My second point was an observation that supports my hypothesis. Again evidence.

Brilliant post! You said it better than I ever could :)

You're right; it is an unpleasant post but I'm afraid I think OP is an unpleasant character, based on everything she's said. So yes, I sank to her level. Not ideal I'll grant you.

Not sure what all this "froth, froth" business is. If someone disagrees with you or writes something you don't like, they're frothing right?

Really? Not sure the jury is going to be convinced I’m afraid, whatever you call it.

Love it. Made me laugh. And it is tragically true.

Loving dancingbears and bravegoldies work on this thread! Nail on head.

In life, when you have more money, you can have better stuff. That applies to most things, including education.
If you have more money, you get to live in a bigger house, drive a fancy car, go on nicer holidays and send your kids to a better school.

That's life.
You also pay loads of tax to help support those who don't have so much, so there is that.

Plenty of people work their backsides off to afford nice stuff and hats off to them. Some don't need to, as they just inherited their wealth, which is less admirable.
But at the end of the day, most people, if they have the money to send their kids to private school, will do. Many people will sacrifice a hell of a lot to give their children the best they can.

If you haven't got the money to do it, then I understand why you're jealous and bitter. Perhaps you want to penalise those that do, because of that jealousy. I understand that too. I just find it a bit sad.

Oh you think 'evidence' just means something that used in the legal context or with a jury?

No - it has a broader meaning than that.

Not really, i just think it has to be more than just a belief and based on something objectively provable. Otherwise someone saying they've witnessed a miracle is evidence of a higher power by that definition (which it clearly isn't).

You can call it evidence if you like though.