Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

easy2012

Screening Candidates Based On Criterias Such As 2.1 Degree

Recommended Posts

easy2012   

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9109577/Companies-told-stop-prioritising-job-applicants-with-top-degrees.html

Companies told: stop prioritising job applicants with top degrees

Major corporations risk discriminating against thousands of students by prioritising job applicants with good degree grades from elite universities, a Government-commissioned review warns today.

More silly PC..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh FFS.

Having interviewed for the last 10 years I don't bother with 2:1s from certain universities anymore unless there's evidence of ability outside the degree.

Some university courses are so bad we even tried to contact them to tell why their candidates were failing. Of course, they didn't respond.

Of course, the idea of ensuring consistency of standards across universities is not an option. If they did that, there would be no need for such filters.

What are we supposed to do? Spend all day interviewing every possible candidate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
easy2012   

When are they going to stop discriminating against those without degrees?

Also they should stop giving jobs based on experience, clearly that discriminates against those without it.

Think next will be that making ability to speak English a requirement will be deemed discriminatory..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I attained there As at A Level but was predicted rather lower and went to the middle of the middle rank non-elite two-Bs-and-a-C Uni to which I'd applied.

People with the exact same grades in the same sort of subjects went to Oxbridge.

And this was years ago.

With piss-easy exams nowadays I bet there are some rather dim 'coursework grafters' that aren't the sort of dynamic individuals likely to set the world on fire turning up for work.

So it makes sense on some level.

To succeed in the modern workplace seems you either need to be a true whizkid or a breathless yes-man with no ability for critical thought. The latter I'm sure you can find in most educational establishments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Traktion   

That isn't baseless discrimination. Finding people with the right skills is what recruitment is all about.

TBH, the whole idea of policy to stop discrimination is daft anyway. If a company foolishly ignores people because of their colour, background etc, other more encompassing companies will get to employ them gainfully instead. The former's loss, is the latter's gain. In the long run, that will make the latter more competitive, encouraging other companies to be more open minded too.

The state should just retract its neck and let people trade freely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the authors of such reports don't expect their doctors to be limited to that elite who have been through medical school. That would be terrible discrimination!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real nonsense is the pretense that a degree in English or *ology has some sort of equivalence to a degree in Maths or Physics. Your typical Oxbridge double-starred first in English wouldn't stand a hope in hell of getting a 3rd in Maths from a former Poly. The UK is dominated by arts grads determined that the shallowness of their education should be for ever masked by the poshness of their alma mater. The country is run (badly) by PPE grads who don't know how many zeros there are on a billion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real nonsense is the pretense that a degree in English or *ology has some sort of equivalence to a degree in Maths or Physics. Your typical Oxbridge double-starred first in English wouldn't stand a hope in hell of getting a 3rd in Maths from a former Poly. The UK is dominated by arts grads determined that the shallowness of their education should be for ever masked by the poshness of their alma mater. The country is run (badly) by PPE grads who don't know how many zeros there are on a billion.

Here have one for your other shoulder

french-fry.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The country is run (badly) by PPE grads who don't know how many zeros there are on a billion.

To be fair there are 2 answers.

Although these people do tend to like getting deficit/debt mixed up, however I do think that is done deliberately to confuse people. But I'm also open to the idea they also have a reality distortion field which allows them to believe what they are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ccc   

Discrimination is natural - it is what the human species - and for that matter probably every other species - does every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh FFS.

Having interviewed for the last 10 years I don't bother with 2:1s from certain universities anymore unless there's evidence of ability outside the degree.

Some university courses are so bad we even tried to contact them to tell why their candidates were failing. Of course, they didn't respond.

Of course, the idea of ensuring consistency of standards across universities is not an option. If they did that, there would be no need for such filters.

What are we supposed to do? Spend all day interviewing every possible candidate?

One of the problems with 'Marketising' higher education is that people who have just spent £lots on a degree course tend to moan if they get failed for the mere detail of not having a clue. With industrial sponsors it can be worse.. you need the revenue, so if you start failing people you are cutting your nose off. I can attest to that pressure..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We recruit for some pretty niche jobs (the kind of stuff they never teach on degrees)and we never solely discriminate on either University or degree classification. One of our best engineers did his 1st degree at Teesside. Although being foreign I'm not quite sure he fully understood the implications of this when he did the course.

We look for particular competencies evident in the CVs (90% go straight in the bin) then do telephone interviews for the ones we're not sure about (this flushes out the 90% of no hopers that are good at writing CVs) then the rest get a face to face interview.

The latest job we recruited for had about 150 applicants and we've whittled it down to 4 for interview. Within that 4 we've got a pretty big spread of academic achievement (Cambridge 1st in Nat Sci and PhD to 2.1 in materials science from Liverpool).

One of our key strategies in interviews (both telephone and face to face) is asking them technical questions that we know they're not going to vbe able to answer from prior knowledge then seeing how they attempt to work out the answer on the hoof. The ones that do well in this exercise tend to make decent scientists, regardless of their degree classification or alma mater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think next will be that making ability to speak English a requirement will be deemed discriminatory.

I'm pretty sure it already is. In fact I think I read about some cases in the news a while back. Though it may have been in the daily mail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snafu   

I'm pretty sure it already is. In fact I think I read about some cases in the news a while back. Though it may have been in the daily mail.

Not sure about that but you can't say "native english speaker", but can say "fluent english". Same goes for other language requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When are they going to stop discriminating against those without degrees?

Also they should stop giving jobs based on experience, clearly that discriminates against those without it.

And don't forget ability, it's clearly wrong to discriminate against idiots when hiring. In fact, all jobs should be given out by random lottery with no right sack anyone, ever. I would like to see the look on the face of on one of the equality do-gooders when the guy about to do their heart operation tells them he was stacking shelves in Tescos last week. F*ckers the lot of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should be aware there is an agenda here. The ostensible rationale of "equality" is only a smoke-screen. The aim is to dilute institutions down to point that they effectively no longer exist; not just universities, but all talent-based organisations. I know someone who recruits for a fire brigade. Diversity came in and told him some of his tests were discriminatory. The "how fast can you assemble this kit test" might discriminate against women because they might do it more slowly. The Marxists also hated the fact that the test didn't have a time limit. The brigade is just looking for general competence with equipment - people able to assemble and use kit under adverse circumstances and time pressure. The Marxists want a number or pass mark so they can start claiming a more favourable number for their client groups. When my friend said, "there is no time limit as such, just like in a real fire where you have no idea how long you've got, we just take a general view on a candidate's competence," they were not at all happy.

The destruction of our elite institutions is essential before a utopian society can be ushered in. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should be aware there is an agenda here. The ostensible rationale of "equality" is only a smoke-screen. The aim is to dilute institutions down to point that they effectively no longer exist; not just universities, but all talent-based organisations. I know someone who recruits for a fire brigade. Diversity came in and told him some of his tests were discriminatory. The "how fast can you assemble this kit test" might discriminate against women because they might do it more slowly. The Marxists also hated the fact that the test didn't have a time limit. The brigade is just looking for general competence with equipment - people able to assemble and use kit under adverse circumstances and time pressure. The Marxists want a number or pass mark so they can start claiming a more favourable number for their client groups. When my friend said, "there is no time limit as such, just like in a real fire where you have no idea how long you've got, we just take a general view on a candidate's competence," they were not at all happy.

The destruction of our elite institutions is essential before a utopian society can be ushered in. ;)

It's not (always) a left-right thing..

The problem is for all those who are interested in power. Essentially, professional expertiese - Scientific, Medical, Engineering, even expert fire-fighting, represents a threat to people who want to just give orders. Hence the impulse to dilute or override.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should be aware there is an agenda here. The ostensible rationale of "equality" is only a smoke-screen. The aim is to dilute institutions down to point that they effectively no longer exist; not just universities, but all talent-based organisations. I know someone who recruits for a fire brigade. Diversity came in and told him some of his tests were discriminatory. The "how fast can you assemble this kit test" might discriminate against women because they might do it more slowly. The Marxists also hated the fact that the test didn't have a time limit. The brigade is just looking for general competence with equipment - people able to assemble and use kit under adverse circumstances and time pressure. The Marxists want a number or pass mark so they can start claiming a more favourable number for their client groups. When my friend said, "there is no time limit as such, just like in a real fire where you have no idea how long you've got, we just take a general view on a candidate's competence," they were not at all happy.

The destruction of our elite institutions is essential before a utopian society can be ushered in. ;)

I spoke to someone in the fire service about this when it all started. I think they reduced the criteria from being able to shift a body weighing 15st to one 12st as the test. Trouble is most firemen are pretty big so if you get into trouble you need to know that your colleague is going to get you out.

It's nuts the test is there for a reason, I'm sure there are women capable of shifting 15st, they'll be big and strong exactly the criteria needed. Not all men can pick up and shift 15st, it's hard work if you want to do the job go to the job and build up muscle.

I think I may enter the 100m in London this year, when they tell me I don't meet the qualifying time I'll tell them that's discrimination because of my age and lack of training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should be aware there is an agenda here. The ostensible rationale of "equality" is only a smoke-screen. The aim is to dilute institutions down to point that they effectively no longer exist; not just universities, but all talent-based organisations. I know someone who recruits for a fire brigade. Diversity came in and told him some of his tests were discriminatory. The "how fast can you assemble this kit test" might discriminate against women because they might do it more slowly. The Marxists also hated the fact that the test didn't have a time limit. The brigade is just looking for general competence with equipment - people able to assemble and use kit under adverse circumstances and time pressure. The Marxists want a number or pass mark so they can start claiming a more favourable number for their client groups. When my friend said, "there is no time limit as such, just like in a real fire where you have no idea how long you've got, we just take a general view on a candidate's competence," they were not at all happy.

The destruction of our elite institutions is essential before a utopian society can be ushered in. ;)

I don't necessarily think this is an evil Marxist plot, I think a ostensibly reasonable policy is formulated and then complete morons and idiots take that idea and run with it.

I think people who do these inspections should be followed around by three normal people armed with tea trays, and when they come out with any idiotic crap the observers have full permission to beat some sense into them!

In the case of the emergency services and the forces, where many of these decisions can be life or death they should be excluded from such meddling (difficult in the case of emergency services because they are usually funded by the council),

I worked briefly for a small town council a couple of years ago, I had to do several hours of diversity and equality online courses before they would let me write code and configure computers, reasonable enough I guess, I was very careful afterwards never to demean or insult any electronic device they had (I just used to think "Bloody Microsoft crap" not say it aloud)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We recruit for some pretty niche jobs (the kind of stuff they never teach on degrees)and we never solely discriminate on either University or degree classification. One of our best engineers did his 1st degree at Teesside. Although being foreign I'm not quite sure he fully understood the implications of this when he did the course.

We look for particular competencies evident in the CVs (90% go straight in the bin) then do telephone interviews for the ones we're not sure about (this flushes out the 90% of no hopers that are good at writing CVs) then the rest get a face to face interview.

The latest job we recruited for had about 150 applicants and we've whittled it down to 4 for interview. Within that 4 we've got a pretty big spread of academic achievement (Cambridge 1st in Nat Sci and PhD to 2.1 in materials science from Liverpool).

One of our key strategies in interviews (both telephone and face to face) is asking them technical questions that we know they're not going to vbe able to answer from prior knowledge then seeing how they attempt to work out the answer on the hoof. The ones that do well in this exercise tend to make decent scientists, regardless of their degree classification or alma mater.

That sounds like a pretty good system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.