‘Breakfast News’
Over 200 graduate recruiters, university careers professionals and agencies gathered at Quaglino’s for September’s TARGETjobs Breakfast News. The topic was ‘Social Mobility – Are we getting anywhere?’ and the general consensus was − not really…
Barrier 1. Initial selection based on degree class A 2:1 bar favours those educated privately and those from privileged family backgrounds.
Barrier 2. Initial selection based on UCAS tariff A level points are an unreliable predictor of educational achievement or success in a career but they are reliable markers of social class, ethnicity and educational background.
power was the amount their parents earned. This argument was developed by Polly Toynbee of The Guardian. Polly believes that the only way to improve social mobility is to put resources into early years, as this is the time when children’s futures are decided.
I
I would hope that the argument for increasing the social mobility of individuals in society (in this case graduates, but it is true of all) to enable recruiters to take on people from all backgrounds and social classes and to offer everyone an equal chance of employment and advancement is pretty much won. After all, a more representative and diverse workforce is better than the opposite.
This viewpoint was put over with passion by the Chairman of Work Group, Simon Howard. Although most (all?) employers buy into the concept, there are several traditional and entrenched barriers in the way.
n his first Breakfast News as Chief Executive of AGR, Stephen Isherwood showed results from a recent survey to show that social mobility was getting worse. He argued that the most reliable indicator of a child’s future earning
Barrier 3. Targeting the ‘top 30’ universities Spending money and time only on recruiting from the top universities means that you are speaking to a more middle-class, white and privately- educated audience.
The solution is simple. Abolish recruitment based on degree class (it’s discriminatory and a poor predictor of success). Stop using A-level points (they are not a proxy for ability but a marker of exclusion). Recruit from and target the other 100 universities where talent also resides, and the student body is more diverse.
Oh if only it was that simple. First of all, change probably won’t happen quickly for several reasons so obvious and so oft-made that I am just too weary to restate them. Simon believes the whole education system needs changing to focus on the consumer, and he’s right of course. He’s also right to remind us that increased social mobility is not
a code for diluting excellence. Large recruiters want a more diverse workforce but they don’t want a reduction in quality. Equally, quality students come from all universities and from all social backgrounds. It’s just more of an effort to fish in uncharted seas.
So a good social mobility strategy is not about dropping standards, it’s about increasing the applicant pool to include students who would probably not apply in the first place. And then it’s about being fair and selecting on ability and potential.
There are some interesting initiatives around to address this little conundrum: how to be as selective and elite an employer as your competitors while simultaneously being open to encouraging more applications from less traditional candidates.
The biggest challenge facing blue-chip recruiters fighting for a more socially diverse workforce will not be to attract applicants; it will be to persuade maybe under-confident students from less well- targeted campuses to give it a go. It will still involve a leap of faith for some undergrads to truly believe that they are wanted by a multinational; to truly believe that their 250 UCAS points and unglamorous university are not being laughed at. And they are wanted, as long as they are super-talented. Which they are just as likely to be − given the chance. n
www.agr.org.uk | Graduate Recruiter 29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36