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?

Of course this is unreasonable! It’s horrible. You’re trying to justify your prejudice?
really nasty. And stupid, to boot

But this thread is about advertising, or people you deem worthy to recruit into advertising is it not? In which case the industry is relevant. In my opinion it wouldn't be a career I would be proud to admit to having, but I can see why it's important to you to feel like you might have contributed something of use.. So we'll done 👏

No worthwhile arguments, so you just insult the OP.

you’re just proving her point. Privilege hates being challenged.

My company hr policy is for diversity and broadening access so we do what OP does, officially. If two candidates are equal yes choose the one from the less priveleged background 🤷‍♀️

No need to insult advertising - we all use it. Plenty of wholesome things get advertised - book, eco products, theatre shows, yoga classes - what a strange angle some of these replies have taken (I don’t work in the business!)

Assuming those criticising advertising are heart surgeons and firemen?!

My company hr policy is for diversity and broadening access so we do what OP does, officially. If two candidates are equal yes choose the one from the less priveleged background
You're not doing what the OP does though. You've got a company policy that people follow and you don't bin applications from adults based on where their parents chose to educate them.

Your approach sounds reasonable to me, and a step in the right direction. Out of interest would your company also take into account that not all young adults can afford unpaid internships when you're recruiting?

Yep - the internships are hard to get and are more targeted to those from less priveleged backgrounds - I don’t work in that part so not sure how that gets applied

I think HR does ‘bin’ applications based on where parents choose to send their kids

it isn’t written like that but that’s what is happening - and I have to say we get a better work force for it

It's written in your policy to bin applications based on seeing a school name on a form? Is this information in the job information pack so people who attended those schools know not to apply?
Just that is quite different from the more reasonable example you gave that gives consideration to background within the framework of a recruitment policy.

Your internships sound interesting and refreshing. When I was in a different line of work I found it depressing that certain routes would have been closed to me because I couldn't afford to move to London and cover my living costs for 6 months whilst working for free.

We have online internships now so distance is less of an issue

what can I say - 50 cvs to choose from, all for degrees in similar areas, and choices get made. It’s just these choices are different from 20 years ago

Your approach sounds reasonable to me, and a step in the right direction. Out of interest would your company also take into account that not all young adults can afford unpaid internships when you're recruiting? We don't put much weight behind internships if we get a smell that they are gained through connections even less so - but also they are of varying quality anyway, what gets learned in 6 weeks isn't really going to impact someone's career trajectory - it's not a good reason to choose to employ someone long term.

We have been invited to take part in a University internship programme targeting students from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

That type of internship is pretty much illegal now - you have to pay min wage for work done unless you are literally following someone around and not doing any work.

My company hr policy is for diversity and broadening access so we do what OP does, officially.

Doing it officially and fully supported by the management is absolutely fine imo. If you have a transparent policy and potential applicants are aware of it, that seems good! Especially if you're actually improving the company's productivity!

But that is not what the op is doing or what this thread is about. The op is secretly binning CVs she/he happens not to like the look of. That is not his/her job or what the commission paying her/him for.

Sorry company (not commission)

I don’t think it would be clear to a candidate other than a statement on our website along the lines of ‘we are committed to recruiting from a range of…’ which I think most companies have now?

the op was quite blunt in her phrasing but surely this approach isn’t unusual in practice

‘And companies should short list the best applicants WITHOUT knowledge of gender, age, religion or education. The BEST candidates should be selected, regardless of background.’

well, clearly they don’t or certain professions wouldn’t be stuffed to the gills with white, male, privately educated employees nor would board rooms. So the obviously IS bias going on now.
unless you’re here to make the argument that privileged white men really are better than the rest of us?

Taking gender, age, religion or education into consideration when employing someone is illegal. A company needs to announce that it is willing to obey the law? Aren't there surveys that show diversity proclamations and other corporate responsibility statements are pretty much distrusted when it comes to products or recruitment? It doesn't show people don't care about those things - they care very much - but (direct) action speaks louder then words...

oops...

How can education be irrelevant? If someone passed more exams than someone else, that will be taken into consideration! Did you just mean the school they went to? What law does that break - it's not a protected characteristic under the equality act (though neither is gender - it's sex).

Answerthedoor
That's good to know.
When I was starting out it seemed every Tom, Dick and Harry had done some internship or other, usually involving living somewhere expensive like London which ruled most people out from doing it.

Newgirls
Those we are committed to recruiting a range of people... statements are still different from transparently saying if your parents chose a school for you and we don't like their choice, we'll be binning your application because we are a workplace that seeks to judge adults based on their parents' decision when they were 11.

I'm all for widening access and participation, but the idea that an adult's application gets binned because someone else doesn't like the school their parents chose is bizarre. If someone can't find a way to shortlist and recruit without binning CVs or applications based on an applicant's parents' choice they can't be that good at recruiting.

@Onthecuspofabreakthrough yes indeed, that was the oops. Was looking at the pp but education is indeed not a protected characteristic. Is someone passing more exams really relevant? What seems clear is that the private-school imbalance is not good for companies. PwC using game based assessment, Penguin no degree necessary etc etc. But legal, given there is a principle of direct action for underrepresentation, OP's adjustment over the years doesn't seem unreasonable (in my view).

I'm all for widening access and participation, but the idea that an adult's application gets binned because someone else doesn't like the school their parents chose is bizarre.

It's indeed crazy. By binning applications without actually looking at that candidates talents and skills, you're potentially losing great employees to competitors. Surely it makes sense to consider ALL applicants (that meet the academic and/or language and/or other requirements) equally.

As no rational company would do such a crazy thing, the op is having to bin these CVs secretly

‘Taking gender, age, religion or education into consideration when employing someone is illegal.’

er, no it’s not. What a fatuous thing to state. Al the job ads asking for university degrees are ‘illegal’ are they? What about the ones saying they are particularly looking to hire from a certain demographic? Or the ones that are exempt because it’s a caring role or similar with intimate care involved?
wise up.