Nepotism

Yes nepotism exists from top to bottom, but the candidate still has to turn up for work and learn the job whatever it is. If dad or uncle or next door neighbour helps a youngster and is let down he doesn’t get a second chance.

ALL employers want young workers to learn to do whatever job it is, if they don’t turn up that means someone else has to fill in, even the most junior matter.
They have to earn the respect of the older workers as well so leave your phone in your jacket and follow instructions if you are willing to learn everyone will help you.
There are plenty of jobs but graduate level openings are restricted, probably always were, only those with a high grade in a relevant subject are going to find work easily.

So, what about bright young people who don't have any family connections? Don't they deserve to have the same opportunities? They could be more suitable, just as responsible, have all of the qualities required for the job but they never even get the chance to apply. This sort of "nepotism" is why people pay vast sums of money to send their kids to the right schools, because it's not what you know, it's who you know. My OH's nephew got a plum job in the city, he's super bright (but so are lots of Oxbridge grads) and he's hard working, however, it just happened that his father owned a city accountancy firm and had extremely good connections. I think people are happy with "nepotism" if they see their own benefitting but not so happy when it's not. No, it's not right but it's common practice.

There are 'dynasties' of all sorts, not just acting. I can think a family of doctors and another couple of teaching families just locally here.
Giving someone you know a helping hand is a great thing to do. It helps both sides in a private business.

When public money is involved I feel the selection process should be open to all.

I think what we are seeing is that nepotism is a complex issue. the examples quoted by foxie48 are the negative side of it and I think few of us would disagree with her, but, as I said it spirals down to trivial cases like my DGD Saturday job, or the plumber's apprentice.

I do think too many people exagerate the influence of a private education, beyond the school years. There are 20 or 30, at the most, private schools that can play the old school tie and influence game, but most universities will not have heard of most private schools, and even fewer employers.

Back in the 1980s my children went to private secondary schools. Since they left - and one returned to the state sector at 16, I do not think anyone has ever recognised the name of their school, nor have either of them ever had any advancement because someone wielded any influence for them because of the school they had been to. Most people take very little interest in what school people went to after the age of about 20.

It's the influence of class and money. That extends beyond people who go to private schools.

I work in a childcare the owner and the owners sister in law work there the mother of one is the cleaner and the owners mother is the cook.

At vocational level an entrant can pretty much choose what career they want, all they have to do is turn up for work and be willing to learn. The first contact will be “work experience” at school, if you are keen you will be invited back for paid work during the holidays. Wether you stay with that job doesn’t matter, when you find the next one you have a reference, that’s even better that dad putting a word in because it’s independant.

At graduate level if you have had work experience in your field and references it makes a big difference, whereas another candidate that has never done any gainful work, partied their way through Uni gaining a mediocre pass then thaken a year out, will be passed by.

The daughter of a good friend of mine didn’t go to Uni from school she took a year out and worked for a company, then went to Uni and paid her own way (parents couldn’t afford it). She got a “First” was headhunted by the company she worked for, moved on after a few years, got married (no kids), moved with husband to Dubai, now in Sydney with a different company and is some kind of global head of HR..

At whatever level the secret is a good work reference then it’s you that has the advantage.

When I first came to live here the dad was the groundsman, his son was the postman, and his daughter was the Avon lady.
Now, the man who services my boiler has a son who serviced it this summer. He is fully qualified.
There's lots of bits of nepotism going on. I don't mind as long as they do the job properly.

MOnica, to answer your question, what has changed is that complaining and moaning has been taken to brand new levels. If it hasn’t been complained about before then maybe it should be. That applies to everything.

nandad

MOnica, to answer your question, what has changed is that complaining and moaning has been taken to brand new levels. If it hasn’t been complained about before then maybe it should be. That applies to everything.

I take the view that "questioning" if something is "right" is very different to moaning about it. When I think about the "nepotism" that we should care about, it's about access to the jobs which bring wealth and positions of authority. Of course there are lots of talented hard working people who, by sheer graft and a bit of luck, rise up from more humble roots and achieve greatness. There always has been, think Dick Whittington et al. However, we had greater social mobility in the 60's than we do now and the gap between the rich and the poor has widened, nepotism does play a part in this.
10https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/inequality-richest-10-per-cent-in-uk-own-half-the-country-s-wealth-a6778976.html

The main difference between now and the 1960s is the obsession with university degrees and successive governments taking pride in how many young people they burden with debt as the only way to get a decent job.

Back in the 1960s professions like law and Chartered Accountancy had ways in for people with any level of education from O levels upwards. Training length and the number of exams required varied with entry level.

I had several friends from varied backgrounds who started their training with only O levels and one, woman, who went into the law ended her career as a judge and has retired on a pension that is more than I ever earned.

Polytechnics enabled, mainly, young men from ordinary backgrounds to get apprentices and then work their way up through a succession of different qualifications to become members of the big engineering institutes.

What is more through these different entry levels of training on the job, apprentices/articled clerks were paid from day 1, not much but it increased as competence grew.

Now the only way into these professions is by first getting a degree and taking on enormous debt.. We need to open up and democratise our professions again, so that people of any background can again enter them.

It has already happened MOnica. Apprenticeships in the law and I believe accountancy already exist - the problem is finding firms which offer them. The vast majority still look for a degree, and of course the top firms want a good degree from a good university.

Don’t usually agree with GSM but I know the NAO have both non-graduate and graduate programmes

GSM That is the problem. In the 1960s, few articled clerks had degrees. My friend who started her articles at 20, after leaving school at 16 with a clutch of O levels, got articles with a big firm of solicitors in one of the Inns of Court.

A boy friend did something similar in accountancy and was with a company in the City. The firm I started my articles for Chartered Accountancy with, had a range of articled clerks. I was the first graduate they had taken on.

re-assessing the need for degrees needs to be the norm in all professions. Many vocational courses could be de-degreed with instead training on the job and with day release. Many of these subjects became degree subjects when students could get their fees paid and maintenance grants for degree studies but not non-degree subjects.

DD's first degree was in acting and I did not think that the academic content of the course was anywhere near degree level. She learnt a craft, in the same way any other craftsperson does. The course was only a degree because of the funding.

The means of non-graduate entry into the law is there MOnica but most law firms want a trainee with a proven academic record (not unreasonable considering the complexity of the law) and who has already passed their professional exams (which the major firms will sponsor them to do). They need someone who will be able to make a positive contribution from day one, not someone who they will have to spend a lot of time and money training up.

I thought a reduced salary for apprentice entries paid the cost of the extra training needed. That or a one term course at a further education college before they started.

They have to be useful immediately MOnica. Lawyers are far too busy to spend time on apprentices with no knowledge of the law or legal practice. They have to go to law school to gain the necessary knowledge to pass their professional exams. I don’t know what you think one term at a FE college would achieve!

Germanshepherdsmum

They have to be useful immediately MOnica. Lawyers are far too busy to spend time on apprentices with no knowledge of the law or legal practice. They have to go to law school to gain the necessary knowledge to pass their professional exams. I don’t know what you think one term at a FE college would achieve!

My husband's Accountant says the same, training must be accomplished, exams ready to pass - or a person wouldn't be hired. The firm is too busy to waste time on people not totally ready.

I accomplish my husband's books, for his accountant, I couldn't possibly pass the exams as the exams are more than just easy numbers.

I think there is something wrong when a company has no sense of social justice.

It’s not what you know but who you know isn’t it.
Its about people who don’t have family contacts to put in a word which excludes them from the opportunity that others clearly have had.
It’s not fair but it happens all the time.

I’m afraid clients don’t allow lawyers time for social justice, MOnica. Forgive me if my memory is incorrect, but I seem to recall you once advising a poster to keep up the pressure on their solicitor. Legal practice is unrecognisable from the days when your friend was an articled clerk, long before the days of even the fax machine, let alone emails and mobile phones. I remember being a partner in a firm with a telex machine, and when fax machines came out we hired one to see if it was worthwhile. When clients communicated by, and were communicated with, by letter and telephone and unless you were a big corporate lawyer ‘normal office hours’ were respected - and there was time to spend years training someone straight from school who knew nothing about the law.

In my son’s case silverlining (like I was, a partner in a big City law firm) it was 100% whathe knew and how good his academic record was. I pulled no strings, made no intr.

Introductions.

When I first started in the NHS as a student nurse, almost all the ward maids and clerks were related to each other. They were wonderful women always cheerful and hard working and helped each other out . The same continued when I started working in the community , the receptionists and support workers were related either sisters, in laws or daughters. Sure it’s not the same now though .

silverlining48

It’s not what you know but who you know isn’t it.
Its about people who don’t have family contacts to put in a word which excludes them from the opportunity that others clearly have had.
It’s not fair but it happens all the time.

Exactly that. I don't know what can be done to make it fairer but the very least we can do is accept that there is unfairness and nepotism is a common currency in our society.