Top London employers discriminate agains't working class people

steddyeddy

Studies done by the social mobility and child poverty commission found that top legal, finance and accounting firms discriminate against people from working class backgrounds. Working class people have got to the highest rungs of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in my experience so I don't think it's a case that parental wealth determines one's skill. It seems more likely a discrimination on the employer's part. Ireland doesn't really have a class system IMO but does this sort of thing go on here? Link here.

This bit leaps out as a bit dodge to say the least:

“Is there a diamond in the rough out there?” the unnamed recruiter told researchers. “Statistically it’s highly probable but the question is … how much mud do I have to sift through in that population to find that diamond?”

Unacknowledged “poshness tests” at elite British companies are thwarting the career prospects of talented working-class applicants and reinforcing social division, according to a government study.
The research by the social mobility and child poverty commission found that old-fashioned snobbery about accents and mannerisms was being used by top companies to filter out working-class candidates and favour the privileged.





The commission examined the recruitment processes at 13 elite law, accountancy and financial companies who between them appoint 45,000 of the best jobs in the country. It found that 70% of jobs offered by those firms in 2014 went to applicants from private or selective schools, even though such schools only educate around 11% of the population.

We need to talk about the way she first chooses words and, second, the way she pronounces them. It will need some polish
Unnamed recruiter

It found that as university education has become more prevalent employers have turned their attention to other characteristics “such as personal style, accent and mannerisms, adaptability, team working”. These “soft skills” were repeatedly found to be interpreted as “proxies for ‘talent’”.
Some successful applicants said they had to disguise their working-class backgrounds to get on. “When I went home … I could go back to, if you like, my old slight twang. When I’m in this environment I pretend I’m posher than I am,” one said.
One employer suggested firms were unwilling to sift through applications from those of working-class backgrounds. “Is there a diamond in the rough out there?” the unnamed recruiter told researchers. “Statistically it’s highly probable but the question is … how much mud do I have to sift through in that population to find that diamond?”
Alan Milburn, the former Labour cabinet minister who chairs the commission, said: “This research shows that young people with working-class backgrounds are being systematically locked out of top jobs. Elite firms seem to require applicants to pass a ‘poshness test’ to gain entry.”
Advertisement

He added: “Inevitably that ends up excluding youngsters who have the right sort of grades and abilities but whose parents do not have the right sort of bank balances.”

The report warned top companies that they were “denying themselves talent, stymying young people’s social mobility and fuelling the social divide that bedevils Britain”.
The report found that there was an increasing awareness of the need for social mobility, but that social class was a “relatively hidden category” of discrimination compared to other forms of diversity.
One recruiter talked about her doubts after appointing someone who lacked “polish”. The unnamed interviewer said: “I recruited somebody … she’s short of polish. We need to talk about the way that she articulates, the way that she, first, chooses words and, second, the way she pronounces them. It will need, you know … it will need some polish because whilst I may look at the substance, you know, I’ve got a lot of clients and a lot of colleagues who are very focused on the personal presentation and appearance side of it.”

How much mud do I have to sift through in that population to find that diamond?
Unnamed recruiter

The report also said that companies were unwilling to acknowledge the problem. It said: “Social class, however defined, apparently remains a strong determinant of one’s ability to access the elite professions and, once there, to thrive. Yet still, this study would suggest that within elite firms, awareness of the role played by social background in relation to career progression is quite low, especially compared to other diversity axes such as gender. Further, participants spoke of their reluctance to discuss social class with their colleagues, on the basis that this is potentially intrusive.”
Some of the firms studied had adopted “CV-blind” selection techniques to hide an applicant’s educational background in an effort to increase social mobility. But it found that this sometimes had the unintended consequences of encouraging interviewers to focus on “proxies for quality such as speech and accent”.
Louise Ashley – of Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the research – urged firms to recruit from a wider range of applicants. She said top firms should “interrogate current definitions of talent, including how potential is identified and assessed, to ensure that disadvantaged students are not ruled out for reasons of background rather than aptitude and skill”.
Gloria De Piero, shadow minister for women and diversity, tweeted that poshness tests were a glass ceiling that Labour was determined to smash.

seamus

Does it go on here in Ireland? Yep.

Accents and mannerisms, as the article says. If you have a heavy accent that sounds like you're from the Gardiner Street flats, you walk with that weird hunched shuffle that junkies do, or you've a permanent, "Come and have a go" scowl on your face, then interviewers will automatically have judged you before you even start properly chatting to them.

Interviews aren't just about whether someone has the skills to do a job, they're also about whether the person will fit in with the rest of the team, whether clients will warm to them, and whether they'll conflict with management. A wise HR person once told me, "Never hire a talented asshole". They might do great work on their own, but half of their team will have left before you realise what the problem is.

In some careers, like finance and accountancy, things like where you went to school or college may also be a factor. The ability to talk schools' rugby with the big clients over dinner, being nearly as important as whether or not you can actually add two numbers together. As evidenced by our financial crash.

It's not really intentional, people tend to gather together like-minded people. So if you're interviewing a group of people, you're quite naturally going to be drawn to the people who are most like you. It's actually quite a big problem for many companies because while they end up with a workforce who all get on really well, they can also have difficulty coming up or developing new ideas - since everyone is thinking along the same lines, dissenting opinions tend to be suppressed or just don't surface at all.
So when someone comes up with a good idea, it can live or die based on whether the groupthink likes it, rather than it being subject to any serious consideration.

Cookie_Monster

This comes under 'how the world actually works' rather than 'news', not sure why it's even being reported.

BattleCorp

My missus applied for loads of jobs that she was well qualified for. She kept putting down our home address and she kept getting nowhere.

I told her to put down her Aunt's address in Dalkey. First job that she applied to using that address, she got the job.

I'm not saying that the address got her the job but.......................

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

Does it go on here in Ireland? Yep.

Accents and mannerisms, as the article says. If you have a heavy accent that sounds like you're from the Gardiner Street flats, you walk with that weird hunched shuffle that junkies do, or you've a permanent, "Come and have a go" scowl on your face, then interviewers will automatically have judged you before you even start properly chatting to them.

I'm talking about working class people from backgrounds of relatively low parental wealth. You're conflating the issue with your own lovely view of working class people. I don't know many college graduates from working class backgrounds acting like you describe.

Interviews aren't just about whether someone has the skills to do a job, they're also about whether the person will fit in with the rest of the team, whether clients will warm to them, and whether they'll conflict with management. A wise HR person once told me, "Never hire a talented asshole". They might do great work on their own, but half of their team will have left before you realise what the problem is.

Yes I agree but that has zero to do with class.

In some careers, like finance and accountancy, things like where you went to school or college may also be a factor. The ability to talk schools' rugby with the big clients over dinner, being nearly as important as whether or not you can actually add two numbers together. As evidenced by our financial crash.

Fortunately science operates by more complex variables.

It's not really intentional, people tend to gather together like-minded people. So if you're interviewing a group of people, you're quite naturally going to be drawn to the people who are most like you. It's actually quite a big problem for many companies because while they end up with a workforce who all get on really well, they can also have difficulty coming up or developing new ideas - since everyone is thinking along the same lines, dissenting opinions tend to be suppressed or just don't surface at all.
So when someone comes up with a good idea, it can live or die based on whether the groupthink likes it, rather than it being subject to any serious consideration.

Of course it's intentional. You just said they do it.

steddyeddy

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

This comes under 'how the world actually works' rather than 'news', not sure why it's even being reported.

Well it's rare you actually get an admission of it. The way the world works isn't a defense. Previously races or sexes were discriminating factors the fact that it happens doesn't make it not newsworthy.

anncoates

seamus wrote: »

Accents and mannerisms, as the article says. If you have a heavy accent that sounds like you're from the Gardiner Street flats, you walk with that weird hunched shuffle that junkies do, or you've a permanent, "Come and have a go" scowl on your face, then interviewers will automatically have judged you before you even start properly chatting to them .

Do you reckon there's an epidemic of these college-educated people from working class backgrounds doing the pimp walk into interviews for professional positions, scowling and asking the interviewers for smokes?

steddyeddy

anncoates wrote: »

Do you reckon there's an epidemic of these college-educated people from working class backgrounds doing the pimp walk into interviews for professional positions, scowling and asking the interviewers for smokes?

Yes this. The sentiment is cretinous. If that was true working class people would be unable to get top jobs in other fields like biotechnology.

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

This comes under 'how the world actually works' rather than 'news', not sure why it's even being reported.

If you read the FT you'll notice it does a token social justice story every weekday, usually written by the author of this piece, Sarah Neville, the closest the FT gets to a commie journalist.

This was today's instalment.

steddyeddy

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If you read the FT you'll notice it does a token social justice story every weekday, usually written by the author of this piece, Sarah Neville, the closest the FT gets to a commie journalist.

This was today's instalment.

A term used by people who attacked those trying to fight against racism and sexism as well.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

My missus applied for loads of jobs that she was well qualified for. She kept putting down our home address and she kept getting nowhere.

I told her to put down her Aunt's address in Dalkey. First job that she applied to using that address, she got the job.

I'm not saying that the address got her the job but.......................

I work in science but I help students from different backgrounds get back into college. From there we all help the students progress in their chosen degrees. We have no problems with students from Sheriff street as an example getting into Cern, or Pfizer and rising to a high level.

On the other hand we have some law students being advised to lie about their address. Once they do they get in. It's a useless culture.

You cannot tell me someone from a working class background can enter Cern and set up equations for spin states of electrons but they can't become and accountant. It makes zero sense.

SEPT 23 1989

seamus wrote: »

Accents and mannerisms, as the article says. If you have a heavy accent that sounds like you're from the Gardiner Street flats, you walk with that weird hunched shuffle that junkies do, or you've a permanent, "Come and have a go" scowl on your face, then interviewers will automatically have judged you before you even start properly chatting to them.

.

people like you describe there are an embarrassment to the working class

it takes a hell of a lot of effort to get out of a rough area,to ignore the carry on around you and get a decent education

employers should remember this

Roquentin

BattleCorp wrote: »

My missus applied for loads of jobs that she was well qualified for. She kept putting down our home address and she kept getting nowhere.

I told her to put down her Aunt's address in Dalkey. First job that she applied to using that address, she got the job.

I'm not saying that the address got her the job but.......................

if you look at the decision theory of how people decide it displays pattern regardless of whether one is going on a date, buying a car or doing an interview. People want to be impressed by what they see before them and these little things like changing an address on a CV does that.

these little things can have a powerful effect.

LadyFenghuang

I saw this and thought it was absolutely appalling. We already know this it SHOULD be getting better not worse.

It's sad you can end up getting a degree and STILL not get a job because of a background.

hmmm

steddyeddy wrote: »

You cannot tell me someone from a working class background can enter Cern and set up equations for spin states of electrons but they can't become and accountant. It makes zero sense.

It's that way because the employers know that the new employees from "rich" areas will have potential contacts who can earn the firm fees. You can have all the equality legislation you like, but there will always be bias as a consequence. I wish I knew the answer, but heavy handed legislation is not it.

steddyeddy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

people like you describe there are an embarrassment to the working class

it takes a hell of a lot of effort to get out of a rough area,to ignore the carry on around you and get a decent education

employers should remember this

It takes a lot more effort to get from a working class background into and through college than for most individuals.

steddyeddy

hmmm wrote: »

It's that way because the employers know that the new employees from "rich" areas will have potential contacts who can earn the firm fees. You can have all the equality legislation you like, but there will always be bias as a consequence. I wish I knew the answer, but heavy handed legislation is not it.

Actually I think the views displayed by people such as Seamus are partly to blame. We need to educate people away from bigoted views.

Roquentin

i remember seeing a doc on tv3 about the lower class areas of limerick city and one guy said that if you had moyross in your address employers would throw your cv into the bin

Pumpkinseeds

It's the real 'postcode lottery'. All CV's from people living in disadvantaged areas were binned by pretty much every company I worked for in the UK.

steddyeddy

Check out this comic on Privilege. I think it highlights some of the views found on this thread.

steddyeddy

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

It's the real 'postcode lottery'. All CV's from people living in disadvantaged areas were binned by pretty much every company I worked for in the UK.

Interestingly why doesn't this happen in the pharm sector? With figures of over 145 billion in revenue last year alone it's hard to see how industries like law could be doing something better.

seamus

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm talking about working class people from backgrounds of relatively low parental wealth. You're conflating the issue with your own lovely view of working class people.

I'm not, because I didn't tell you what my "view of working class people" was.

In Ireland we don't really have a class system. An interviewer will very much judge you based on how you speak and conduct yourself in an interview. Your name could be Fionn and you grew up in Foxrock, but if you sound like one of the Dubliners, then you're going to drop a few notches in the rankings.

Yes I agree but that has zero to do with class.

Yes, but my point is most people will link a certain kind of behaviour with a certain kind of person. And if your conduct in an interview makes you appear to be this "kind" of person, then it will be assumed that's the kind of person you are. And one of the big things which cause people to judge the kind of person you are, is going to be your accent.

Fortunately science operates by more complex variables.

You'd think so, but it doesn't. It tends to focus more on pure merit, but equally there be a big "one of us" mentality in scientific disciplines.

Of course it's intentional. You just said they do it.

It's not intentional, as in it doesn't exist on any written or mental checklists. Nobody consciously says, "Roysh, if this goy cawn't tell me who the stawr linebacker for the 'rock was in 2005, then he's jush not the goy for us".
It's part of an overall unconscious profile that the person builds up of the candidate and will eventually go for or against that candidate.

seamus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually I think the views displayed by people such as Seamus are partly to blame. We need to educate people away from bigoted views.

What bigoted views?

I love how you've automatically assumed I was defending or condoning this practice.

You've revealed your own issues there with your jump to conclusions Eddy.

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

I'm not, because I didn't tell you what my "view of working class people" was.

I mentioned working class you described people not getting a job based on them walking into the an interview like a junkie. I don't know how you can assume anyone who made it through a college education acts like that. It's a bigoted view to suggest people from working class backgrounds aren't getting the jobs because they might walk into the interview like a junkie.

In Ireland we don't really have a class system. An interviewer will very much judge you based on how you speak and conduct yourself in an interview. Your name could be Fionn and you grew up in Foxrock, but if you sound like one of the Dubliners, then you're going to drop a few notches in the rankings.

As I said that's discrimination.

Yes, but my point is most people will link a certain kind of behaviour with a certain kind of person. And if your conduct in an interview makes you appear to be this "kind" of person, then it will be assumed that's the kind of person you are. And one of the big things which cause people to judge the kind of person you are, is going to be your accent.

Accent does not equal behavior. As I said before another scientist I shared a department with didn't hire private school boys. He said they were less likely to have worked in their lives and that their parents funded their education and lifestyle. Not an example of self directed in other words. When I heard this was the case I reported him because it was bigotry based on an accent. Something which you appear guilty of.

You'd think so, but it doesn't. It tends to focus more on pure merit, but equally there be a big "one of us" mentality in scientific disciplines.

Science I am happy to say operates on pure merit. The one of us attitudes exists the one of use refers to someone with a scientific mind.

It's not intentional, as in it doesn't exist on any written or mental checklists. Nobody consciously says, "Roysh, if this goy cawn't tell me who the stawr linebacker for the 'rock was in 2005, then he's jush not the goy for us".
It's part of an overall unconscious profile that the person builds up of the candidate and will eventually go for or against that candidate.

So the tip would be don't be born into working class environments.

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

What bigoted views?

I love how you've automatically assumed I was defending or condoning this practice.

You've revealed your own issues there with your jump to conclusions Eddy.

I said people discriminate against working class people. You painted a picture of a junkie from gardener street walks into an interview looking for a fight. That is a very bigoted view of educated working class people.

How many working class people choose to go against the grain in their area and put themselves though college and then turn up at an interview like that?

Pumpkinseeds

steddyeddy wrote: »

Interestingly why doesn't this happen in the pharm sector? With figures of over 145 billion in revenue last year alone it's hard to see how industries like law could be doing something better.

That was my experience.

seamus

steddyeddy wrote: »

I mentioned working class you described people not getting a job based on them walking into the an interview like a junkie. I don't know how you can assume anyone who made it through a college education acts like that. It's a bigoted view to suggest people from working class backgrounds aren't getting the jobs because they might walk into the interview like a junkie.

/facepalm

It's an example, FFS. You seem to be taking this very personally. My point being that that there are things that people associate with "working class", and they will kill someone in an interview, sometimes before they even open their mouths.

As I said that's discrimination.

Yes, it is.

Accent does not equal behavior. As I said before another scientist I shared a department with didn't hire private school boys. He said they were less likely to have worked in their lives and that their parents funded their education and lifestyle. Not an example of self directed in other words. When I heard this was the case I reported him because it was bigotry based on an accent. Something which you appear guilty of.

What am I guilty of? I'm not disagreeing with you.

Science I am happy to say operates on pure merit. The one of us attitudes exists the one of use refers to someone with a scientific mind.

That's extremely naive, and runs pretty counter to your previous example. You personally may strive to select solely on merit, but clearly based on your anecdote not everyone does.

So the tip would be don't be born into working class environments.

I wasn't giving any tips. Just explaining why it happens.

suicide_circus

anncoates wrote: »

Do you reckon there's an epidemic of these college-educated people from working class backgrounds doing the pimp walk into interviews for professional positions, scowling and asking the interviewers for smokes?

Any spare jobs bud?

seamus

steddyeddy wrote: »

I said people discriminate against working class people. You painted a picture of a junkie from gardener street walks into an interview looking for a fight. That is a very bigoted view of educated working class people.

Bigoted != stereotyped. Look it up.

How many working class people choose to go against the grain in their area and put themselves though college and then turn up at an interview like that?

I know of a number of people and have encountered a number of situations where someone's accent went against them. Where management informally said to other management that they were "giving him a chance", even though the guy was more educated and capable than half the company.

I know a insanely intelligent and talented Irish doctor who was out of work for three months after graduating before one hospital gave her "a chance".

Amirani

steddyeddy, you seem extremely confident that this doesn't happen in science and jobs there are purely based on merit. Do you think that Tim Hunt is an equal opportunities employer that bases his hiring decisions purely on merit? Do you think he's an isolated case?

Pumpkinseeds

I think most of us would agree that it's a bad thing to discriminate against a a qualified candidate simply because they come from a disadvantaged background. The reality is that the major companies can cherry pick the very best staff and they will mostly have a preference for employees who come from at worst, a middle class background.

Look at countries like America, the so called land of the free, where everyone can supposedly succeed, despite their background. Funnily enough it's the people with the Ivy League educations who will be the most employable.

Dyr

You see the thing about inequality and prejudice is that certain sections of society do quite well out of them so they have a vested interest in keeping the status quo as is

I can guarantee you that every poster who's going "well, of course thats how things work" in this thread would have been saying the same about the darkies and wimmen 20 or 30 years ago.

steddyeddy

Diego Simeone wrote: »

steddyeddy, you seem extremely confident that this doesn't happen in science and jobs there are purely based on merit. Do you think that Tim Hunt is an equal opportunities employer that bases his hiring decisions purely on merit? Do you think he's an isolated case?

A large number of extremely successful scientists come from working class backgrounds. No I would agree that Tim Hunt is discriminatory. He's gone and rightfully so. What's the chances of the bigots in the article going too?

steddyeddy

Bambi wrote: »

You see the thing about inequality and prejudice is that certain sections of society do quite well out of them so they have a vested interest in keeping the status quo as is

I can guarantee you that every poster who's going "well, of course thats how things work" in this thread would have been saying the same about the darkies and wimmen 20 or 30 years ago.

They probably still do secretly.

steddyeddy

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think most of us would agree that it's a bad thing to discriminate against a a qualified candidate simply because they come from a disadvantaged background. The reality is that the major companies can cherry pick the very best staff and they will mostly have a preference for employees who come from at worst, a middle class background.

Look at countries like America, the so called land of the free, where everyone can supposedly succeed, despite their background. Funnily enough it's the people with the Ivy League educations who will be the most employable.

I've heard the same thing based on race, sex and the handicapped in the past. It will never be acceptable to me just because some people have certain views on a particular group of people.

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

/facepalm

It's an example, FFS. You seem to be taking this very personally. My point being that that there are things that people associate with "working class", and they will kill someone in an interview, sometimes before they even open their mouths.Yes, it is.
What am I guilty of? I'm not disagreeing with you. That's extremely naive, and runs pretty counter to your previous example. You personally may strive to select solely on merit, but clearly based on your anecdote not everyone does.
I wasn't giving any tips. Just explaining why it happens.

Ok I thought you were defending the practice. My apologies. No not everyone does and thankfully he is gone now.

Science has a unique history in that some of the biggest names were from working class backgrounds such as Faraday or Ramanujan.If you can prove yourself via experiments, conclusions and new theories your accent won't matter. Law seems more subjective.

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

Bigoted != stereotyped. Look it up.
I know of a number of people and have encountered a number of situations where someone's accent went against them. Where management informally said to other management that they were "giving him a chance", even though the guy was more educated and capable than half the company.

I know a insanely intelligent and talented Irish doctor who was out of work for three months after graduating before one hospital gave her "a chance".

Stereotyped is still wrong. It's about as true as the stereotype Tim Hunt had against female scientists.

Pumpkinseeds

steddyeddy wrote: »

I've heard the same thing based on race, sex and the handicapped in the past. It will never be acceptable to me just because some people have certain views on a particular group of people.

Nobody is saying that it's acceptable. We're just being realistic and it's utterly ludicrous to suggest that those of us living in the real world are closet racist sexists who discriminate against the disabled.:rolleyes:

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

You see the thing about inequality and prejudice is that certain sections of society do quite well out of them so they have a vested interest in keeping the status quo as is

I can guarantee you that every poster who's going "well, of course thats how things work" in this thread would have been saying the same about the darkies and wimmen 20 or 30 years ago.

And that they are not the ones with the 'wrong' accent or 'background' they are saying it in the sure and certain knowledge that they are part of the in group who don't get discriminated against.

steddyeddy

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Nobody is saying that it's acceptable. We're just being realistic and it's utterly ludicrous to suggest that those of us living in the real world are closet racist sexists who discriminate against the disabled.:rolleyes:

I don't get you. You saying that it's not acceptable to discriminate then you say that nobody in the real world is doing it?

Pumpkinseeds

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't get you. You saying that it's not acceptable to discriminate then you say that nobody in the real world is doing it?

No I didn't say that. I said that discrimination isn't acceptable but that in the real world it happens. I'd say it's standard practice. I don't agree with it but there's bugger all I can do about it. Businesses want people who will fit in with their corporate image, therefore someone with excellent credentials from a background like Moyross for example, competing with a candidate who attended Oxford or Yale is never going to get the job. It sucks but it's the reality. Discrimination isn't right and it isn't fair but in the worlds of Law, Medicine and the Sciences it will always exist.

steddyeddy

We could actually make blind CVs the standard where we don't put your school of attendance on the CV.

bigpink

Hate people that seem like normal nice people telling you there from rough or disadvantaged areas

MattD1349

A good friend of mine is a highly qualified accountant in a very well known company. He is originally from Jobstown in Tallaght yet to look at him or listen to him you'd never know. Worked just as hard to adopt a D4 accent just as hard as he worked in college which was a scholarship. He was never let forget where he was from while in college or how he was there by all the students who were sent there by 'Mom & Dod.'
When he graduated he found that putting his address on his CV wouldn't even get him an acknowledgement letter but when he used his girlfriends (now his wife) address in a very leafy southside suburb he was hired.
The pressure to blend in & the fear of being 'discovered' was immense. I can remember him nearly having panic attacks in certain situations. It got that bad & he became so ashamed that when he got married they did it in the Caribbean so that none of his family could afford to go but all the work colleagues could & did.
He gradually morphed into a right pratt & last time I saw him he was avoiding myself & some 'old pals' in a very well known pub on the southside. Anyone who says class & snobbery doesn't exist in this country is either deluded or middle class themselves. There's assholes everywhere.

PARlance

steddyeddy wrote: »

We could actually make blind CVs the standard where we don't put your school of attendance on the CV.

CVs in braille?

I'd like to hear your plans for the interview process. Are personal questions allowed?
How do you cover up accents?

Roquentin

MattD1349 wrote: »

A good friend of mine is a highly qualified accountant in a very well known company. He is originally from Jobstown in Tallaght yet to look at him or listen to him you'd never know. Worked just as hard to adopt a D4 accent just as hard as he worked in college which was a scholarship. He was never let forget where he was from while in college or how he was there by all the students who were sent there by 'Mom & Dod.'
When he graduated he found that putting his address on his CV wouldn't even get him an acknowledgement letter but when he used his girlfriends (now his wife) address in a very leafy southside suburb he was hired.
The pressure to blend in & the fear of being 'discovered' was immense. I can remember him nearly having panic attacks in certain situations. It got that bad & he became so ashamed that when he got married they did it in the Caribbean so that none of his family could afford to go but all the work colleagues could & did.
He gradually morphed into a right pratt & last time I saw him he was avoiding myself & some 'old pals' in a very well known pub on the southside. Anyone who says class & snobbery doesn't exist in this country is either deluded or middle class themselves. There's assholes everywhere.

ive seen both extremes (people from poorer areas and the affluent areas) and i have to say i get on better with the lads from poorer areas. i found teh rich kids a bit too upper classy

steddyeddy

PARlance wrote: »

CVs in braille?

I'd like to hear you're plans for the interview process. Are personal questions allowed?
How do you cover up accents?

Blind is a slang term used in reference to leaving out the name of your school on a CV. Listen if the accent thing really is a point of discrimination we can certainly train people to hide it. My accent is fairly neutral but I can impersonate the stereotypical D4 and North Dublin accent :P.

Well yes of course relevant personal questions are allowed. I don't see how the school one would help really.

K4t

PARlance wrote: »

How do you cover up accents?

Accents can be changed and quite easily altered - it's not necessarily discrimination to take a person's accent into the equation when hiring for a job.

PARlance

steddyeddy wrote: »

Blind is a slang term used in reference to leaving out the name of your school on a CV. Listen if the accent thing really is a point of discrimination we can certainly train people to hide it. My accent is fairly neutral but I can impersonate the stereotypical D4 and North Dublin accent :P.

Well yes of course relevant personal questions are allowed. I don't see how the school one would help really.

Yip I'm aware of blind cvs and I don't see them solving any problems re descrimination as the interview is the deciding factor.

My point was that if a recruiter is likely to decsriminate, blind cvs will possibly just result in a longer process in finding someone that ticks all their boxes.
You can't hide colour or sex in an interview, and while accents can be changed, you can't stop personal questions that will help ascertain where someone grew up.

steddyeddy

PARlance wrote: »

Yip I'm aware of blind cvs and I don't see them solving any problems re descrimination as the interview is the deciding factor.

My point was that if a recruiter is likely to decsriminate, blind cvs will possibly just result in a longer process in finding someone that ticks all their boxes.
You can't hide colour or sex in an interview, and while accents can be changed, you can't stop personal questions that will help ascertain where someone grew up.

If people are going to discriminate then the person should under so uncertain terms lie.

PARlance

steddyeddy wrote: »

If people are going to discriminate then the person should under so uncertain terms lie.

Agreed, lying in an interview could get you sacked and put a big dent in your career prospects.

Still not sure what good blind cvs will achieve though.