Would student services mention my grandson was expelled?

Germanshepherdsmum

I’m amazed that anyone here considers it acceptable to be so economical with the truth when, after ignoring warnings, he was sent down for causing criminal damage while under the influence of drugs, and has only escaped a convicted by not having been reported to the police.

There are laws determining what has to be revealed and what doesn't, with statutes of limitations on 'spent' convictions, purely because there are those who would hold past sins against people forever.

If the boy has a criminal conviction he would have to declare it, but even then it would expire after a while if it is not considered that he will always be a danger, or if the nature of the role means that he needs to be squeaky clean. Those parameters are for the law to decide.

It is not for the rest of us to make our own rules about what should constitute an albatross around the neck of young people forever. Nobody is trivialising what he did, but he was punished for it at the time, and the question is about how he can move forward, not about how he can best ensure that he pays the penalty forever more.

Out of interest, is it legal for an employer to insist on more information about previous offences than the law says must be declared?

As he wasn’t reported to the police there is no conviction to ever be considered spent so that consideration doesn’t arise. It’s certainly lawful for employers to probe the reasons for unexplained gaps on cvs.
Fund management involves the investment of money and I would consider honesty an important requirement. It’s also an area notorious for drug abuse - very long hours working under stress. Someone with the sort of history mentioned here - not a bit of casual weed smoking but behaviour necessitating warnings, involving criminal damage and eventually resulting in the very rare step of expulsion - and happy to deceive in order to obtain (extremely well paid) employment is not suited to fund management imo.

I have seen CVs where there are gaps in people's education and career, and the interviewing panel has interrogated this by questioning character referees. Usually the answer is non-committal: a period of ill-health, different viewpoints, or bluntly, he was asked to leave. The reasons are often not made explicit but the prospective employer is justifiably suspicious; occasionally it is explored further at interview, but sometimes the candidate is deemed not worth the risk.

Your grandson's former actions do constitute a possible risk; he must be honest and hope they will accept his subsequent rehabilitation.

I don't think anyone has mentioned this but isn't it quite usual to have security clearance at varying levels for jobs in finance? and my following point will be, you have to be honest on them.

Germanshepherdsmum

As he wasn’t reported to the police there is no conviction to ever be considered spent so that consideration doesn’t arise. It’s certainly lawful for employers to probe the reasons for unexplained gaps on cvs.
Fund management involves the investment of money and I would consider honesty an important requirement. It’s also an area notorious for drug abuse - very long hours working under stress. Someone with the sort of history mentioned here - not a bit of casual weed smoking but behaviour necessitating warnings, involving criminal damage and eventually resulting in the very rare step of expulsion - and happy to deceive in order to obtain (extremely well paid) employment is not suited to fund management imo.

Yes, I know that in your opinion he is not suitable, but with all due respect it is neither your decision to make, nor for you to sit in judgement over someone you have never met and make decisions about his future.

The question was about whether the university will declare the reason for his leaving. I am still not clear about whether there is a gap in his CV or not - the information has been strangely sparse where it matters - if he took three years over a degree and swapped universities mid-stream then there is no gap. If he left one and then had to go through the applications procedure again to get a place in the other, it is a different matter, as questions may be asked.

In both cases, however, if there had been a conviction, the law would protect both the applicant and the employer by setting out what and for how long the conviction must be declared - our legal system allows offenders to move on. As you say, this matter didn't get that far, so why should he not be able to do the same?

Of course I can’t make decisions about his future but as my son and many of his friends - going back to university - work in various aspects of the finance sector I perhaps can be credited with knowing how tightly knit it is and what goes on in some areas. Someone who has had a drug problem, which can easily resurface in that environment, is not a good risk and the prospective employer will know that. If there has been a conviction the law allows the offender not to declare it in certain circumstances but it does not compel a prospective employer to ignore gaps in the cv. It offers a degree of protection to the employee but none to the employer. Don’t you find the statement that the grandson would pass even an enhanced dbs check worrying?
How ironic that ‘the information is strangely sparse where it matters’.

Btw, he may well fail a dbs check
www.dbschecks.org.uk/5-ways-you-can-fail-a-background-check/

GSM I'm not saying that the grandson is a good or bad risk, and am not denying that you know about the financial sector, in which my son also works, for what that's worth (very little, IMO).

My point is that the OP has asked a specific question, not to listen to moralising about her grandson't suitability for a stressful career.

It is difficult to answer the question without a lot more information than we have been given, however - I think we agree on that.

As I said before, no-one here is in a position to give the OP a specific answer. And in any case, it's up to her grandson to sort this all out for himself. He is a grown man now - leave it to him to worry about.

We do agree on that, though I would go further and say it’s a question that we can’t answer.

I loathe deceit and dishonesty and have done my best to persuade the OP to dissuade him from such behaviour by being honest about his past. She appears to consider it perfectly acceptable to deceive if he can get away with it and land the job, and is even asking for assistance here. If he persists and the prospective employer discovers the deceit (and that’s not a remote chance) they may (having regard to the interests of the industry) decide to report him to the police for obtaining, or attempting to obtain, a pecuniary advantage by deception. I’m not being dramatic - that’s what he’s doing. That would scupper a career in finance and many other professions. Is it worth it?

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4782060-would-the-first-uni-tell-my-sons-prospective-employer-he-was-expelled

Hmmmm.

So... makes so much more sense now

Doodledog

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4782060-would-the-first-uni-tell-my-sons-prospective-employer-he-was-expelled

Hmmmm.

Well done you! Made no sense at all.

If this is real, and if they plan to keep anything secret - be it drugs, cheating or mental health issues - my advice is to keep the mum/granny well out of it😂. International Spy material she certainly isn't!

The plot thickens. I suspect worriedgrandma and worriedmama are one and the same, and possibly even the 'GS' too...

Agreed. More probably a GD in an attempt at a cunning disguise.

Well done to find that. The reference to graduation from high school doesn’t sound British but ties in with a reference to the employer wanting to check every year since graduation. Either US or a windup, I suspect the latter now,

My current job in the UK is a humble one and was offered to me rather than my applying for it. Because I work for a charity that helps vulnerable people, I had to write a list of everything I had been doing since leaving school, including the years when I had been a full-time parent. They wanted to know about my involvement in voluntary organisations such as guiding and scouting and about my involvement as a school governor as well as every paid job I'd ever had including summer holiday jobs.

So it's not just a US thing. It's a safeguarding thing plus, no doubt, other 'things' as well.

So, in short, it's a requirement to "explain your whole life up to this point."

This would seem to be what the grandson person had to do.

Due diligence!

It is best for him if he admits he was expelled and why, and hopefully that he has learnt from it and improved his behaviour, or it could come back to bite him rather hard in the future!!!
2 years is a long time and sooner or later he would probably mention that he went to such-and-such uni and totally put his feet in it, and possibly be fired on the spot for omitting that information!
If your grandson wants to be taken seriously and treated like an adult, he should take responsibility and admit his errors!!