Job applications screening for privilege.

If you’re talking about positive discrimination in a particular scenario, I have given an example of it. No reason to choose the inferior product apart from the need to tick some boxes.

Germanshepherdsmum

It seems a very unlikely situation Glorianny. Surely such a company wants to provide its customers with the best experience it can, regardless of the author of the game? Is it really going to decide not to buy a really good game invented by a white man who went to Eton and instead buy one likely to be much less profitable invented by a black man who had fsm? Really?

Wow GSM bit of prejudice showing there! Why would the white man's be "really good" and the black man's not equally good? In which case the company would take the black man's.

It's a situation which happened in publishing in the 1970s when Virago was established to publish women's writing. The only difference being that the lack of opportunity for diverse groups is recognised by many organisations so does not require a special company to work towards equality.

It seems a very unlikely situation Glorianny. Surely such a company wants to provide its customers with the best experience it can, regardless of the author of the game? Is it really going to decide not to buy a really good game invented by a white man who went to Eton and instead buy one likely to be much less profitable invented by a black man who had fsm? Really?

There are no details though. The 'accurately described situation' is that someone you are calling your son lost out because of positive discrimination. Or was it something or someone else?

As I thought it seemed a bit odd, and that it wouldn't apply to job applications (which you now say is because it wasn't about employment). I was just asking for clarification, not that you give details of exactly what happened and where.

Germanshepherdsmum

Is that a real situation or purely hypothetical Glorianny?

The details are hypothetical GSM, The situation is accurately described- "The names have been changed to protect the innocent" Da-de dat da

Positive discrimination has been going on for many years, employers usually have a pretty good idea of the candidate that would fit in with their organization. I’m sure that for certain jobs you would not choose a privately educated applicant, for others they may be highly suitable. You often see “ no experience needed” read that as “we well train you the way we want”.

Of all the criteria employers look for in a candidate family background would be well down the list, in any case there are plenty of university educated parents that are not doing graduate work. Why ask these family questions?, my guess it’s employment agencies getting as much information as they can

Is that a real situation or purely hypothetical Glorianny?

The thread had already widened out into other areas Doodledog, perhaps you hadn't noticed that. I thought assuming things and reading things into other people's posts was something you found unacceptable.
On a thread about positive discrimination I thought an example of a younger person understanding it and not being resentful might be appropriate.
There is no need for personal and unpleasant attacks.

Well suppose you have a company which produces say computer games and sources their products mostly through freelance providers. Their data shows that most of their contributors are white male, they therefore decide to use positive discrimination to ensure a more diverse base. It isn't illegal.

I’m finding it hard to work out how anyone can be the victim of positive discrimination and thereby lose out on anything other than a job or university place. Perhaps Glorianny could explain.

Doodledog

*I don't think I mentioned job applications in my post Doodledog you couldn't possibly be reading into it something I didn't say could you? Not all situations are job related you know and positive discrimination does happen in other areas.*

Is there really any need for such a snide and unpleasant reply? The thread is about job-related monitoring of demographics, and I was just asking how it had worked in the situation you brought up, as in those circumstances there should be no question of someone 'losing out'. I can't think of other areas where positive discrimination would cause someone to lose out, but I'm sure you're right that they will exist.

If you post on a thread about job-related discrimination you can hardly be surprised if people assume that that is what you are talking about, can you?

The thread had already widened out into other areas Doodledog, perhaps you hadn't noticed that. I thought assuming things and reading things into other people's posts was something you found unacceptable.
On a thread about positive discrimination I thought an example of a younger person understanding it and not being resentful might be appropriate.

growstuff my husband was admissions tutor many years ago at a Russell group university when the choices came to his actual school from the central office. It was very different then. At that point he had a fair amount of discretion in who was chosen (and had a colleague working with him who also discussed every candidate with him). They spent 100s of hours pouring over such things as references and personal statements.

Many years later, as part of the admissions team at another RG university, he had almost no leeway. It was agreed centrally what would be acceptable and varied year to year. In his time, in his subject (which is all he really knew about) central office dropped the requirement for a foreign language at GCSE and they allowed "disadvantaged" students to "drop a grade" - eg, not have an A grade in one of three A levels. This might mean an ABB instead of AAB or BBB instead of ABB.

I have asked him this morning, just out of interest and to his knowledge the sort of reduction you speak about happening these days (2 grades) seems much more. I expect it's a good thing but as so many Russell group universities now go to clearing anyway...

I don't think I mentioned job applications in my post Doodledog you couldn't possibly be reading into it something I didn't say could you? Not all situations are job related you know and positive discrimination does happen in other areas.

Is there really any need for such a snide and unpleasant reply? The thread is about job-related monitoring of demographics, and I was just asking how it had worked in the situation you brought up, as in those circumstances there should be no question of someone 'losing out'. I can't think of other areas where positive discrimination would cause someone to lose out, but I'm sure you're right that they will exist.

If you post on a thread about job-related discrimination you can hardly be surprised if people assume that that is what you are talking about, can you?

Many years ago one of my partners refused to consider an applicant for a training contract on the basis of her Christian name. I won’t mention it here, but let’s say it had Essex girl connotations.

When it comes down to it, all jobs should be granted on the basis of the best person for the job. Not because of nepotism, discrimination or anything else. Unfortunately though, HR are human and regardless of what is put in place, bias will probably still take place.

Doodledog

That's interesting. In what way can someone 'lose out' because of positive discrimination? That shouldn't happen if good practice (and Equal Opportunity laws) are adhered to.

The demographic data is separate and used for monitoring, not selection. There can be things like all female shortlists if the role requires it, or exemptions under the Equality Act if the role is working in a private home, or involving personal care*, or needs someone from a particular background (usually ethnic background) to do it.

I can't think of circumstances where someone could lose out, as they wouldn't meet the criteria for application if demographic information were taken into account. After the screening stage, interviews should always be on an equal footing, with everyone taken on merit (although there is always someone who won't accept that a woman, or a person of colour could get a job just because they were a better candidate ).

I know this isn't what you were getting at, but in many ways screening by qualifications is discriminating against people who would be unsuitable because they didn't have the relevant ones, but nobody gets upset about that.

*although self-id around so-called 'gender' shoots holes in that, of course.

I don't think I mentioned job applications in my post Doodledog you couldn't possibly be reading into it something I didn't say could you? Not all situations are job related you know and positive discrimination does happen in other areas.

As regards using the words -"lower class" - obviously if its used in a pejorative way then its not acceptable, but we still live in a society where there are great differences in social class - certainly more complex than before.

That's interesting. In what way can someone 'lose out' because of positive discrimination? That shouldn't happen if good practice (and Equal Opportunity laws) are adhered to.

The demographic data is separate and used for monitoring, not selection. There can be things like all female shortlists if the role requires it, or exemptions under the Equality Act if the role is working in a private home, or involving personal care*, or needs someone from a particular background (usually ethnic background) to do it.

I can't think of circumstances where someone could lose out, as they wouldn't meet the criteria for application if demographic information were taken into account. After the screening stage, interviews should always be on an equal footing, with everyone taken on merit (although there is always someone who won't accept that a woman, or a person of colour could get a job just because they were a better candidate ).

I know this isn't what you were getting at, but in many ways screening by qualifications is discriminating against people who would be unsuitable because they didn't have the relevant ones, but nobody gets upset about that.

*although self-id around so-called 'gender' shoots holes in that, of course.

It's so interesting to see these attitudes. I once asked my DS, who has lost out on things because of positive discrimination, if he resented the way things were done. He said he didn't because he understood the difficulties and problems some people had always experienced, and not understanding that was the very nature of privilege.
Age sometimes doesn't bring understanding.

Yes, I’m sure you would if you didn’t want the job.

I'd be tempted to write back asking the company some questions too, eg. Who is the owner of the company? What did his/her parents do for a living? Has the Company ever been sued for mistreating or bullying employees? Do you spy on your employees? Has your Company ever been prosecuted for Fraud? See how they like it.

I agree with your posts GSM.

These days, they won't employ someone who simply can't do the job. A variety of backgrounds will enrich any organisation.

it is not all about Grades. As a specialist 6th Form Tutor (now retired) I know that the personal statement, and the teacher's long 'reference' count for a lot.

growstuff, as my son didn't apply to a Russell Group University I can't speak for them. However, he was applying for the same subject as his other State School Friends, some to the same Universities, and his offers wanted much higher grades even though he was doing 4 A levels to their 3. He had many other strings to his bow such as mentoring, being a prefect and Sports Team Captain and work history so I am afraid I remain unconvinced about the weighting.

Germanshepherdsmum

My son’s state school education, by no means ‘amazing’, has, we think, been a positive benefit. Yes, he is very bright and got straight As and a First, but going to state schools has in no way disadvantaged him in the employment market even in the still-stuffy legal profession where he is now a partner. A potential employer knows what advantages a private education brings and that, even with parental support and their own bedroom, the same results from a state- and a privately-educated candidate are not truly comparable. One of my son’s university friends, from Eton, no less bright, has not fared so well … Having endured a couple of arrogant, obnoxious, entitled privately-educated trainees, who seemed unable to think for themselves because they had been spoon-fed their education and the way to pass exams, I always favoured the state-educated when interviewing, and didn’t regret it.

Agreed totally. So so many of our friends and OH' colleagues sent their children to private education at top schools, and most of them did not do as well as ours who went to the local Comp. They had to learn to organise themselves, mix with very different people, and so much more. In fact, throughout their career, this ability to mix and adapt, has been a massive plus.