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?

Lovely to see how someone can step outside their own personal experiences of discrimination and still see the bigger picture. You sound fair Coconutcream.

Heh. All the posts saying 'well Hugo's parents sent him to boarding school and they hit him with sticks, and then his parents kicked him out, and no-one else at Morgan Stanley has to bear those scars. And Jasmine fell into a combine harvester so how can she be privileged' are as desperate as they are hilarious.

@thedancingbear

Hugo?
Jasmine?

And you're criticising what you choose to call 'personal attacks' on the OP?

She wasn't forced to post the sordid details of her sad vendetta online.

Not picking the best person for the job is very odd

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's not 'evidence'.
Just because it's unconvincing or even weak evidence doesn't mean it's not evidence - and yes anecdotal evidence is typically weak evidence - but it is still evidence.

Not everything can be objectively proven. There are whole scientific disciplines battling with this very issue.

So sure, you can disagree with me, think my evidence is weak or come up with loads better evidence that contradicts my hypothesis. But we're still talking about evidence.

Although, maybe you simply prefer black and white thinking and this nuance is a step too far.

So the people who choose to game the system by sending their kids private then do A-levels at a state school are perfectly rewarded as their applications won't be thrown in the bin. apparently the OP knows the provenance of every school they encounter in their recruitment process.

But this is a thing that could be objectively proven in real life (but we're not going to be able to here obviously as this is just mumsnet), so really your anecdotes don't reach even that threshold. But I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree here as it doesn't look like either of us are going to convince the other (and I'm off to bed!).

OP, you are using a very ill informed method of social engineering. In your approach to redress the balance, you are discriminating against various characteristics that hinder people. We use blind shortlisting that removes gender, age, names of educational institutions so that the shortlist is based on the strength of the application and no other biases that the shortlister may have.

@EastLondonObserver Citing your "European societies" isn't an argument in itself, you know, what is the strand of your argument, exactly?
No private schools? wrong. No elites that are mostly privately educated? wrong. That SC educated job candidates are favoured? no, it's who fits the role best. The school a person went to as a child doesn't enter into the equation, doesn't appear on CVs and isn't discussed or taken into account in a professional setting. Are the top roles in government and commerce mostly filled by privately educated white males? You bet they are.
What European countries do tend to have is a decent and free state school system topped with universities that are affordable. If you can afford the notoriously long studies, you might get superb qualifications and start looking for a job in your late 20s or early 30s. If you're now a physician or a teacher that's fine but if you are a dentist, an architect or a lawyer hoping to make a living, you'd better have connections and/or deep pockets to set yourself up. It's become a running joke that supermarket checkouts are filled with doctors in philosophy, literature and modern language.
Because a reasonable education is available to most, the premise is that the system is fair, and in truth, it is fairer than what we have in the UK, but, who runs the place, who has the top jobs? Well, quelle surprise, it's people educated in a very small private school system - sometimes means tested but still not for everyone - which gives them access to the small, very expensive, über competitive private schools where they prepare for the supremely competitive entrance exams for the country's elite schools. These schools each specialise in different sectors, covering finance, administration, commerce, politics, government and the arts. In the spirit of universal fairness, these schools are free and in some instances students are even remunerated - it's just that getting there isn't exactly cheap, or inclusive. Once in, this now minute portion of the population can start to relax, the studies themselves are notoriously a breeze compared to what came before, so unless they cock up spectacularly, these people in their mid-twenties are made. It's the 'royal highway' into every top roles you can think of, in both the private and public sectors.
So @EastLondonObserver I can't to see how any of this relate to or corollate with anything you've said so far, no. I don't understand why you keep spouting about 'European societies' in the context of your east London crusade without bothering to make a link. What are you talking about?

With respect, if you were privately educated and the best you can come up with is some old Red Dwarf quote to put me down, I would suggest that is good evidence not to privilege the privately educated n society.

if you post a convincing evidence driven (ideally including data from a reputable source) argument I’m all eyes and ears. If all you have to offer is shallow ad hominem speculation, then no, I’m not going to engage.

I see you're so convinced of your own righteousness that you're demanding evidence based arguments from critics, while skirting the question of personal morality, hiding behind the larger morality of the flawed system as justification for the fundamental dishonesty of being paid to do a job that you're not actually doing. That is to say, taking money that you haven't earned.

Do you go home, eat dinner, and then head out again to lead a girl guide troop or participate in tutoring of underprivileged children? Do you volunteer at your nearest underperforming secondary school, coaching teens in job hunting, or conducting mock interview programmes, or helping them get their CVs together? Do you run a business clothing bank for young people trying to break into the world of gainful employment? Or do you only indulge your conceit when you're being paid?

But op has said her hires have been successful and have become valued members of her team so she is doing her job effectively?

This has been going on for a while so if there were an issue or op was losing the company money pretty sure that would have be picked up and dealt with. Guess she is doing what she can for the greater good. Don’t lose sleep over it looking at the stats your dc are still massively advantaged!

Also think it unlikely the op does what you list if she works full time - she does what she can I guess.

As an aside this is my fathers life’s work. Retired teacher now but still volunteers to mentor pupils from the local comp to help them prep for Oxbridge interviews to redress the balance. It can be quite time consuming and he has the skill set not something to take on while working full time.

But if the Op is so successful at this and has been doing it for years, why is she not pushing for systemic change?

If she can prove the non private hires are equally or better regarded and successful, than private hires, she could be pushing for actually policy change in the many companies she has worked in. She doesn’t need to tell them she engineered it. Now is a great time to push this with employers.

That would create change at a greater rate for a longer period. Most Universities have policies and support to show they are proactive in ensuring pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds attend their Uni. Many employers have official policies about taking graduates from ranges of back grounds, to achieve what the op is doing. And not out of the goodness of their heart, because they know it’s good from an optics point of view and know that they have a better chance of hiring the best person for the job. It opens up the talent available to them.

However, Op isn’t doing that. Ops policy would help me and my children. But, it simply doesn’t make sense that she isn’t pushing to do this officially.

If the op was following fair policy and the direction of travel for hiring this would happen. Not binning CVs. No one is going to go along with it hence the secrecy.

@EastLondonObserver you break my heart

On a serious note this thread did spark a conversation last night and a friend said that once she had submitted two CV’s for a job (ironically to prove the point that only certain CV’s get through) and she was surprised when it was the other one got her the interview. She said she was interviewed by a bit of a know-it-all windbag and didn’t take the job. She never forgot them tho so maybe your campaign isn’t as secret as you think.

It's not surprising though, is it?

You've two candidates who have identical qualifications, except one of those has had a massive leg up through the private education system. The other has achieved the same with far less help. The second candidate is likely to be more innately capable, harder working, and is likely to be on a steeper flightpath.

It's entirely rational for a business to recruit the second candidate. It's also completely consistent with employment law. I'd do the same.

Hugo and Jasmine don't actually exist, you know.

You can't commit a 'personal attack' against an invented character.

Anyway, Jasmine's dead (nasty business, that).

OP, you are using a very ill informed method of social engineering. In your approach to redress the balance, you are discriminating against various characteristics that hinder people. We use blind shortlisting that removes gender, age, names of educational institutions so that the shortlist is based on the strength of the application and no other biases that the shortlister may have

Yes! That is why the op's secret binning of CVs she doesn't like will never be approved by any respectable company!

If she can prove the non private hires are equally or better regarded and successful, than private hires, she could be pushing for actually policy change in the many companies she has worked in.

Yes, if the non private hires actually did a better job and made the company more money than those from independent schools, companies would absolutely want to hire them.

Lots of companies appreciate this. Mine does. it gives us a competitive advantages.

And then there are dinosaurs. Are you seriously suggesting that the 'old school tie' network doesn't exist? That there are businesses that don't prefer to recruit from their 'personal networks' (ie. their partners' kids)?

Fine if it’s above board. The op has to do it in secrecy as it’s not policy.

More companies are moving towards blind version anyway so the out of date ones will be those who see schooling.

And then there are dinosaurs. Are you seriously suggesting that the 'old school tie' network doesn't exist? That there are businesses that don't prefer to recruit from their 'personal networks' (ie. their partners' kids)?

In my experience companies are looking to hire the BEST candidates for the job, those that will make the company the most money, and in an increasingly competitive environment these candidates are recruited from a global talent pool!

So no, I do not believe that most hires at successful companies are their partners' kids!

So, in the final analysis, in your view, that the OP is bullshitting or hallucinating; and that there is no bias in certain businesses towards recruitment from particular backgrounds (even though statistics show that law, accountancy, advertising, politics etc. show overwhelming statistical bias towards the privately-educated).

I think we can agree to disagree on that. Which is a polite way of saying that I can't be fucked to engage with your wilful ignorance any further.

So, in the final analysis, in your view, that the OP is bullshitting or hallucinating; and that there is no bias in certain businesses towards recruitment from particular backgrounds (even though statistics show that law, accountancy, advertising, politics etc. show overwhelming statistical bias towards the privately-educated).

I simply said that successful companies tend to recruit the BEST applicants. In my opinion these should be selected on the basis of 'blind' shortlisting so that candidates are chosen on merit alone, regardless of gender, religion, education.

If privately educated applicants happen to perform better, then companies will continue to hire them.

If privately educated applicants happen to perform better, then companies will continue to hire them.

Any evidence that privately educated applicants perform better in the job market?