Institutionally Posh

It’s satisfying when something you’ve been whanging on about for a while gets forthright backing. I’m talking about the report on elitism at top law, accountancy and financial firms, where disproportionate numbers of jobs go to applicants from the higher socio-economic classes. Here it is.

 

It certainly produced an initial burst of articles that got the point. HR Magazine, The Guardian, even The Daily Mail – although they did maintain editorial standards by somewhat missing the point and going for an angle about accents.

Here’s a few of the things that (in the Executive summary for England) the report talks about:

·         “… typically forty to fifty percent of applicants have been educated at a Russell Group university. These Russell Group applicants receive between sixty and seventy percent of all job offers. The high proportion of applicants from these universities is a direct result of elite firms’ recruitment and attraction strategies, which comprise a variety of campus visits and targeted advertising specifically devised with this aim in mind.”

·         “The educational and socioeconomic background of Russell Group students is not representative of the UK as a whole nor within higher education.”

·         “…candidates from favoured Russell Group universities have a significantly higher conversion rate from application to job offer compared to peers educated elsewhere.”

·         “Attraction strategies devised by elite firms therefore also play an important role, since elite firms offer students at these institutions coaching and advice sessions on the application and interview process.”

·         “…because some of the activities conducted during campus visits may reinforce elite firms’ image of exclusivity”

·         “[firms seek] the capacity to present a “polished” appearance, display strong communication and debating skills, and act in a confident manner at interview … Russell Group universities are successful in providing them with high numbers of talented candidates according to this definition.”

·         “… the current definition of talent may disadvantage talented students who have not benefited from similar educational advantages or been socialised in a middle-class context…”

·         “… that new entrants to elite firms who come from non-traditional class and/or ethnic backgrounds may feel relatively isolated but simultaneously more visible and therefore exposed as they start their career.”

Or, to summarise: These firms have a particular definition of talent. They set out to seek them, support them and design their selection processes to advantage them. But that definition of talent overlaps with the most privileged in society. If the Met Police were “institutionally racist”, then here’s a good argument that these firms are “institutionally posh”.

To an extent they acknowledge this, but they also acknowledge their problem:

·         “Many participants acknowledged that social inclusion could be improved should firms seek different ways to measure potential, which might also deliver new professionals with a wider range of skills and abilities. However, doing so is considered expensive, difficult and high risk”

·         “For many firms, making the significant changes to recruitment and selection processes which would genuinely open access is not then currently a commercial priority. Whilst efforts to improve social inclusion are often presented by firms in relation to the business case for talent, most of our participants considered that given high volumes of suitable applicants, this business case is not currently compelling”

Their entire business strategy relies on them recruiting large numbers of graduates every year: 1,200 for PWC and Deloitte. And those graduates must be business-ready. Commercially, that strategy works for them right now; if it didn’t, they’d have already changed. And when students at the most elite universities get asked where the best opportunities are – they believe it’s at these firms, and the cycle is maintained.

I’ve been involved in many research projects that advise all types of employers how to recruit graduates – often looking for greater diversity in graduates. This underlines that to open up to all parts of society, the changes and recommendations are going to have to be wider-ranging to have real impact. They’ll need to decide if they are genuinely serious about this, or are merely tinkering at the edges.