[7589200]

I wonder what peoples feelings are about what the word means especially regarding hiring and what is acceptable.

Im going to give you escalating (in my view, you can disagree of course) levels of "elitism" and what I want you to tell me is, what is OK and what isnt.

Scenario 1
"Intelligent Corp" decides that to be eligible for its jobs you need to have an IQ of over 120 and it makes all applicants sit an IQ test before interview.

Scenario 2
"Investman-Sachs" decides that it only wants to accept applications from students with a 1st or 2.1 in their undergraduate degree.

Scenario 3
"Loser Brothers" decides that it only wants to accept applications from students with good (1 or 2.1) degrees from certain universities which it believes produce smarter students.

Scenario 4
"Old Boy Network Inc" decides that it only wants to accept applications from students with any degree from certain universities which it believes produce students better prepared for the "persuasion" of rich clients for investment.

Scenario 5
"Bullingdon Inc" decides that it only wants to accept applications from white students with numerous city connections because this is the easiest way to get new business.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts!

Vazzyb

[Booyah]

All except Scenario 5, that is just plain racism

Elitism in my books is okay, all the politicians put down elitist schools when they themselves went to them.

[a.partridge]

just having 'standards' isn't really elitism or having a uni requiring CCC could be called elitist by CCD applicants (if they had the vocabulary) 1#,2#,3# (depending on whether 3 is judged fairly - who wouldnt take the awarding institution into account?)

#5 is ridiculous and yeah clearly getting into racism there

#4 is the only normal one left in it to be elitist

elitism to me would be having double/non logically justifiable standards like a 2.2 from oxford will do you but a 1st from Kings college london and no way...

[7589200]

So would you say 4 is wrong or right?

And that is essentially what 3 is saying..."1 or 2.1 degree ok from
xyz but no degree from others"

[Shelly_x]

2 is okay.

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by Vazzyb)
I wonder what peoples feelings are about what the word means especially regarding hiring and what is acceptable.

Im going to give you escalating (in my view, you can disagree of course) levels of "elitism" and what I want you to tell me is, what is OK and what isnt.

Scenario 1
"Intelligent Corp" decides that to be eligible for its jobs you need to have an IQ of over 120 and it makes all applicants sit an IQ test before interview.

Scenario 2
"Investman-Sachs" decides that it only wants to accept applications from students with a 1st or 2.1 in their undergraduate degree.

Scenario 3
"Loser Brothers" decides that it only wants to accept applications from students with good (1 or 2.1) degrees from certain universities which it believes produce smarter students.

Scenario 4
"Old Boy Network Inc" decides that it only wants to accept applications from students with any degree from certain universities which it believes produce students better prepared for the "persuasion" of rich clients for investment.

Scenario 5
"Bullingdon Inc" decides that it only wants to accept applications from white students with numerous city connections because this is the easiest way to get new business.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts!

Vazzyb

I'd say 4 is elitist but their decision if they have had the best experience with those universities. 5 is just a big fat no no. The rest are fine.

[Jarred Kyle]

I feel that 'elitism' is, most of the time, not necessary at all for certain occupations. Your education will of course be important although they should not categorise establishments.

Scenario 1 and 2 are fine so long as that's what the job requires.

3 is borderline but 3 and 4, in my opinion, should not categorise certain establishments.

Scenario 5, as said, is purely racism and in this current society is not and should not be tolerated.

[goussberry]

(Original post by Booyah)
All except Scenario 5, that is just plain racism

Elitism in my books is okay, all the politicians put down elitist schools when they themselves went to them.

Agreed with the scenario 5 comment.

BTW not all politicians went to elitest schools. Yeah I agree, many many do, but take Wilson & Heath in the 1960s-70s for example. All state school educated PMs

[goussberry]

(Original post by Vazzyb)
I wonder what peoples feelings are about what the word means especially regarding hiring and what is acceptable.

Im going to give you escalating (in my view, you can disagree of course) levels of "elitism" and what I want you to tell me is, what is OK and what isnt.

Scenario 1
"Intelligent Corp" decides that to be eligible for its jobs you need to have an IQ of over 120 and it makes all applicants sit an IQ test before interview.

Scenario 2
"Investman-Sachs" decides that it only wants to accept applications from students with a 1st or 2.1 in their undergraduate degree.

Scenario 3
"Loser Brothers" decides that it only wants to accept applications from students with good (1 or 2.1) degrees from certain universities which it believes produce smarter students.

Scenario 4
"Old Boy Network Inc" decides that it only wants to accept applications from students with any degree from certain universities which it believes produce students better prepared for the "persuasion" of rich clients for investment.

Scenario 5
"Bullingdon Inc" decides that it only wants to accept applications from white students with numerous city connections because this is the easiest way to get new business.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts!

Vazzyb

Elitism, by my definition, is favouring people from middle-upper/upper classes & those who went to top schools & unis, over those from lower classes or more "mediocre" unis.

Scenario 1... Not elitist. (EG: RAF only employ introverts. That's not elitism)

Scenario 2... Not elitist (unless specified 'we only take Oxbridge applications, won't even consider those from IDK, Reading or West London University).

Scenario 3... More elitist

Scenario 4... Most elitist

Scenario 5... Just plain racism

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by Vazzyb)
x

4) is elitist unless the university is well known for somehow being able to make all applicants gain the skill to be more 'persuasive' (doubt it). 5) is just racist... i dont know about 1).... IQ doesnt necessarily mean much...

is it really elitism if you just want to hire smart people to do jobs? if you need to be smart in order to do a job and you as an employer just dont want to waste time and just go for smart people, is it elitist? if a person can do a job with a pass grade and you say you want a 1st from applicants, then that is elitist...
i dont know what those jobs you mentioned entail, but generally speaking, for the numbers i havent mentioned which are jobs based on grades, if the bold is not true, then i dont think they are elitist...

[Joinedup]

Well no one's going to be able to prove what your real motives are. You might not want to hire any black british people but you could cover it up by saying you need to hire oxbridge graduates for some red herring of a reason.
Not sayin it's necessarily oxbridges fault it doesn't have many black british students.

[Drewski]

(Original post by goussberry)
Elitism, by my definition, is favouring people from middle-upper/upper classes & those who went to top schools & unis, over those from lower classes or more "mediocre" unis.

Scenario 1... Not elitist. (EG: RAF only employ introverts. That's not elitism)
Scenario 2... Not elitist (unless specified 'we only take Oxbridge applications, won't even consider those from IDK, Reading or West London University).

Scenario 3... More elitist

Scenario 4... Most elitist

Scenario 5... Just plain racism

Re bold, you're using that as a hypothetical example, right, not as an example from reality?

[goussberry]

(Original post by Drewski)
Re bold, you're using that as a hypothetical example, right, not as an example from reality?

From what I've been told, reality. Am I wrong?

[Drewski]

(Original post by goussberry)
From what I've been told, reality. Am I wrong?

Yep.

When I went through and our flight had a test* I was the only one of the 30 to be an introvert. They went as far as saying that, on the whole, they prefer "thinking extroverts", but not to the extent that they'll get rid of people who don't match that. There is an aptitude test, but it test ability at tasks, not personality.




*that our flight did the test was very rare and not the norm.

[Drewski]

(Original post by goussberry)
From what I've been told, reality. Am I wrong?

Really, you're going to neg me for politely asking you to clarify something which I then later, again politely, corrected? How precious are you?!

[7589200]

(Original post by Joinedup)
Well no one's going to be able to prove what your real motives are. You might not want to hire any black british people but you could cover it up by saying you need to hire oxbridge graduates for some red herring of a reason.
Not sayin it's necessarily oxbridges fault it doesn't have many black british students.

Absolutely but I find it interesting to see if people think that having the 'right' motives for preferring a certain university makes it less elitist.

[7589200]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
4) is elitist unless the university is well known for somehow being able to make all applicants gain the skill to be more 'persuasive' (doubt it). 5) is just racist... i dont know about 1).... IQ doesnt necessarily mean much...

is it really elitism if you just want to hire smart people to do jobs? if you need to be smart in order to do a job and you as an employer just dont want to waste time and just go for smart people, is it elitist? if a person can do a job with a pass grade and you say you want a 1st from applicants, then that is elitist...
i dont know what those jobs you mentioned entail, but generally speaking, for the numbers i havent mentioned which are jobs based on grades, if the bold is not true, then i dont think they are elitist...

The bit in bold: Do you think first year investment bankers need a 1st in Economics to fill in spreadsheets all day long?

Over-qualification happens all the time. But there are obvious benefits - the person moves to a harder job within the organization or requires less supervision .

[yothi5]

(Original post by Vazzyb)
I wonder what peoples feelings are about what the word means especially regarding hiring and what is acceptable.

Im going to give you escalating (in my view, you can disagree of course) levels of "elitism" and what I want you to tell me is, what is OK and what isnt.

Scenario 1
"Intelligent Corp" decides that to be eligible for its jobs you need to have an IQ of over 120 and it makes all applicants sit an IQ test before interview.
Nothing wrong with this

Scenario 2
"Investman-Sachs" decides that it only wants to accept applications from students with a 1st or 2.1 in their undergraduate degree.
Nothing wrong with this
Scenario 3
"Loser Brothers" decides that it only wants to accept applications from students with good (1 or 2.1) degrees from certain universities which it believes produce smarter students.
Nothing wrong with this
Scenario 4
"Old Boy Network Inc" decides that it only wants to accept applications from students with any degree from certain universities which it believes produce students better prepared for the "persuasion" of rich clients for investment.
Something wrong with this
Scenario 5
"Bullingdon Inc" decides that it only wants to accept applications from white students with numerous city connections because this is the easiest way to get new business.
?!
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts!

Vazzyb

Views in bold

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by Vazzyb)
The bit in bold: Do you think first year investment bankers need a 1st in Economics to fill in spreadsheets all day long?

Over-qualification happens all the time. But there are obvious benefits - the person moves to a harder job within the organization or requires less supervision .

depends if the knowledge the applicants need to fill out whats on spreadsheets is equivalent to a first... does something like a first show that the applicant 'has what it takes' to do their job? and is it the minimum of such requirement? minimum being the emphasis when talking about whether something is elitist or not

if yes then yes
if no then no...

the latter may be a benefit but i do not regard the former as one... if its a 'harder' job then they require higher requirements. this however does not mean the former easier job can have high requirements to... Even then, perhaps a harder job does not warrant higher qualifications... if its in terms of a promotion or something, experience can do just as nicely...

to conclude, less supervision is the only one out of the two you mentioned that is a positive

[johndoranglasgow]

To be honest, I think they're all fine.

Employers should have the right to hire and fire whoever the hell they like, it costs more than just the employee's salary to actually have them in your company and at the end of the day forcing employers to take on graduates (directly or indirectly) will only lead to an uncomfortable situation for both parties.

I'll certainly admit that certain mindsets should be discouraged, particularly number 5 but at the end of the day an employer who is hiring is no different than a guy walking into a car dealership - he's spending the cash, so it's his call.