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?

‘Penguin no degree necessary’

Penguin has one of the whitest, MC and UMC workforce you’ll find anywhere! It’s stuffed with privately educated ‘Emma’s’ as is publishing in general.

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
Exactly.
If you (hypothetically) had two applications for a grad scheme, from similar universities, similar sort of grade profile overall, each with a decent statement, and one is state education and the other privately. The state educated candidate has lower A Levels than the other and doesn't have the same industry work experience as the privately educated candidate. It would make sense to take the state school educated candidate over a privately educated one because it's good to increase diversity in the workplace and given all things weren't equal along the way, they're probably the stronger candidate overall.

It would make no sense to look at a stack of applications, see which ones were privately educated and bin them.

Taking...education into consideration when employing someone is illegal.

Are you on glue?

It would make less sense, I'll agree.

But no-one is really disputing that there are better things she could be doing. The key question as I see it is whether the world's a better place for the OP's actions. I think it's a no-brainer that it is, even if a few private schoolkids get to learn what unfair disadvantage feel like.

How can education be irrelevant? If someone passed more exams than someone else, that will be taken into consideration!
It depends, passing more exams doesn't always make you better at your job - I would not see someone with 5 A' levels as better than someone with 3 A levels. And PhDs are not something we value - so it could be a mark against rather than for.

‘the internships are hard to get and are more targeted to those from less priveleged backgrounds’

I’m WC and work in publishing. I’m one of the very few not from a MC or above background. Our industry is dominated by privilege. Our interns are all MC or above because the WC kids can’t afford to live off the wages.
I applaud OP.
I similarly favour WC candidates because despite all our DE&I policies we
seem to keep hiring the same types of people.

Ha that was the oops. But bit bored now. The relentless of those defending privilege because it’s not ‘fair’. Out of this one.

Yep. People like me and the OP won't give up until we have a fairer workplace and a fairer society.

Suck it up, buttercup. Your kids are going to have to stand on their own feet.

I would not see someone with 5 A' levels as better than someone with 3 A levels. And PhDs are not something we value - so it could be a mark against rather than for.

But surely that is very job dependant. While your company doesn't value or even sees negative value in high academic achievement, many jobs DO require such skills.

So of course education (including skills learned such as languages or programming) and academic ability do matter hugely!!

@thedancingbear you might be mistaking me for someone else because I’m with you and OP all the way …. sloppy typing today.

@thedancingbear but very bored of the defense of privilege. The it’s not fair wails if someone has the temerity to take direct action to address imbalance. Keep going.

Suck it up, buttercup. Your kids are going to have to stand on their own feet.

Why are you assuming that this is about posters' kids?

It is about the op's ridiculous binning of CVs of applicants she doesn't like the look of despite getting paid by her employer to recruit the 'best' applicants.

She should set up her own company and pay her own money for this social engineering project.

citroenpresse
@thedancingbear but very bored of the defense of privilege.
Uou might be talking about something else but in general people should defend anyone that has been treated unjustly not just who they feel are always right

And sloppy reading on my part too. Sorry @citroenpresse , and thank you

And yet you and others are having a pop at the OP for her one small act of defiance, and are silent about the fact that all our top professions - law, accountancy, politics, advertising - are dominated by a self-selecting privileged elite. The very thing that the OP is railing against.

Priorities innit.

And yet you and others are having a pop at the OP for her one small act of defiance, and are silent about the fact that all our top professions - law, accountancy, politics, advertising - are dominated by a self-selecting privileged elite. The very thing that the OP is railing against.

Because the op is behaving appallingly by binning applications she doesn't like the look of, even applicants who, in his/her own words "I have rejected them even when they clearly would have done a better job than a comprehensive school educated alternative".

Blind hiring is a better solution to this. No names or education listed on job applications, so everyone applying gets a fair shot!

But the years of the binning of state school applicants (evidenced by the fact of who is at actually ar the top of these companies) doesn’t seem to engender the same passion. Funny that.

But no-one is really disputing that there are better things she could be doing. The key question as I see it is whether the world's a better place for the OP's actions. I think it's a no-brainer that it is, even if a few private schoolkids get to learn what unfair disadvantage feel like.
But they aren't learning what unfair disadvantage feels like. There's no policy in place that says heir applications will be binned so don't bother applying as the shortlister doesn't like private schools.

With apparently 25 years experience and being very senior and successful the OP could have done a huge amount more than binning applications because she has a chip on her shoulder about private schools.
It seems more about the OP feeling good about themselves as a robin hood figure than putting in any real graft into making changes to an area of work they claim to have spent decades become successful and we'll regarded in.

‘And yet you and others are having a pop at the OP for her one small act of defiance, and are silent about the fact that all our top professions - law, accountancy, politics, advertising - are dominated by a self-selecting privileged elite. The very thing that the OP is railing against.’

yup! There a lots of people out there like OP - I’m one of them.
recently had a choice between 2 candidates, both would be good. I chose the woman. And I made sure she started at the top end of the salary range. I chose her because she was a woman.

I’m I awful? Nope
did I positively discriminate and reject the white, straight man? Yup.

But the years of the binning of state school applicants (evidenced by the fact of who is at actually ar the top of these companies) doesn’t seem to engender the same passion. Funny that.
It does here, which is why I've spent my career working with children in state education and widening opportunities.

Years ago I'd have probably come out with the same over-simplistic feel good rhetoric that's throughout this thread. The longer I've spent looking at the problem, then more I'm concluding that it's complex. It's very easy to get sucked into vanity/feel good projects that feel nice, but they're simple and wrong, and it's much harder to dig deeper to find the right solutions, which are probably more complex.

I have taught state students with vast amounts of family money, excellent connections into certain professions, the sort of parent networks that as a working class, state-educated child I had no idea existed in state educated children. I've also known families experience substantial issues with the state system that have gone on to home educate or use the private system and they have substantially less privilege than the first group. Methods like the OP would see children in the second camp binned at application stage in favour of the first, purely because the OP doesn't like independent schools.

surprised so many people
are outraged on behalf of the privileged… I doubt they’d show the same concern for the less fortunate

I’m one of them.
recently had a choice between 2 candidates, both would be good. I chose the woman. And I made sure she started at the top end of the salary range. I chose her because she was a woman.

But both your candidates were equally suited and good for the job. It therefore doesn't matter who you ultimately employ.

The op has "rejected them even when they clearly would have done a better job than a comprehensive school educated alternative"

So the op's actions are harming the company who employ and pay her salary!

The 'injustice' meted out to the 5% should be the focus of defence? Or maybe support for the Etonians, poor lambs, who stand less of a chance at Oxford? 'We need to make it very very clear we intend to reduce admissions from independent schools' said a Cambridge Vice-chancellor in May. OP has made it very very clear that a similar swathe of independent candidates might need rejection in her industry for fairness. Really, what's the difference.

We need to make it very very clear we intend to reduce admissions from independent schools' said a Cambridge Vice-chancellor in May. OP has made it very very clear that a similar swathe of independent candidates might need rejection in her industry for fairness. Really, what's the difference.

The difference? One is a publicly funded place of learning. The other is a private company looking to maximise earnings.