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?

I hope that the company is no longer employing you!

YABVU and possibly acting illegally, out of sheer spite. I honestly think what you're doing is shameful.

You are putting your own agenda first, potentially working against the best interests of the companies that employ you.

They don't employ you to forward your political agenda, and if you believe you have the right to do this on someone else's dime, then so would someone else if the tables were turned.

You are failing your duty to the companies you work for.

These were corporate companies - it made no meaningful difference to me if they were mildly less successful as a consequence.

What do you mean with 'corporate companies'?

You sound like an absolute knob.

It seems the biggest hiring mistake was you. No company would be pleased to know you are binning applicants who are the most qualified....

OP, totally with you. Working in the creative sector, watching rich white men hire their friends sons with NO experience other than poncing about on a boat and saying their did publicity for a club as a job.

You can tell their applications from a mile off.

Best person for the job, why is where they received their education relevant.

Any type of prejudice built on stereotypes is abhorrent.

It is private yes, and in fact some of the things I mentioned have also happened to a few children in youngest DDs class and she is only 9, so again money doesn't always mean easy life.
Also op specifically states at entry level, so we are assuming those just come out of uni.

That's the whole point.

I like your style op.

People who have the benefit of private school don't need yet another legup. Whether they are there on a scholarship, they've still got the benefits over state educated children. You're just redressing the balance.

And you're getting all the responses you are because a lot of people on Mumsnet privately educate their kids. But they somehow think they're not actually one of the ones who are giving their kids a legup over other children who languish in state schools... When of course they are. But they don't want you to point it out.

And FWIW, professionalism consists of understanding your role and governing yourself accordingly.

It's as simple as that.

You do not understand your role and because of this serious limitation on your part you believe you are justified in conducting a personal and political vendetta, potentially to the detriment of your employer.

By your very flawed reasoning here, someone in a position like yours could decide that women or BAME or graduates of non RG universities don't deserve consideration for jobs, and would be completely justified in binning their CVs.

Both are wrong so if you are going to advocate one you can’t complain if someone does the other IMO

Why not just state in the job description for your company, 'No one privately educated need apply'. Would save a lot of your time and the candidates' time as well. Sounds fair.

It's tricky one, but the part where I think you are being slightly unreasonable is if this:

Sometimes I have rejected them even when they clearly would have done a better job than a comprehensive school educated alternative.* *

If you have two otherwise equal candidates, use whatever tie break you like, but if one is clearly superior to the other, then it's wrong to pass them over just because their parents have money.

Interestingly, I know some big firms are really trying hard to recruit more diversely, and stop recruiting people who look like 'you' (specifically white, middle class men in one of the firms I'm aware of). Yet, you're doing the same, right? Recruiting people who look like you...

Being described "unprofessional" bothers me not one jot. "Professionalism" by your definition is just a smokescreen for the domination of choice jobs through unearned privilege.

Actually professionalism is to hire the best candidate for the job, regardless of what school they went to, and as you're not doing that then yes your incredibly unprofessional. I wouldn't expect you to care with a chip that big your bitterness must be all consuming.
I hope one day you can find peace and hopefully it will help you become less ignorant.

It seems the biggest hiring mistake was you. No company would be pleased to know you are binning applicants who are the most qualified....

This.

You're being paid to hire the best suited and best qualified candidates, those who will do the best job for the company (who is paying you to find the best candidates!!

Of course you think it is fine. People who discriminate always think they are justified. You are using your position of power to discriminate because of a personal prejudice just like everyone one else who does it. You sound proud of it which adds to the nastiness of it.

This

shame on you OP

@OldReliable

Nonsense.

But carry on painting with that broad brush if nuanced thought is too tiring.

Did you tell your employer about your prejudice when interviewing for your job as a hiring manager?

Good for you! YANBU. We need more people like you in this country.

I think good for you.

If you have two otherwise equal candidates, use whatever tie break you like, but if one is clearly superior to the other, then it's wrong to pass them over just because their parents have money

Why isn't that an acceptable tie break? There are plenty of recruiters who would take the privately educated candidate over the state educated. Why isn't it ok the other way?

YABU - but I don't mind too much because there is a chance that these people that you rejected decided to pursue a worthwhile career path instead of advertising.