Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What is elitism and when is it OK in hiring?

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goussberry)
    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
    Because the 60s and 70s are in any way relevant to current politics, right? Nice going, champ.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I'm black and Oxbridge and take exception to the above remark. Nah just joking , I know what you mean, but just so you know we do exist and there are quite a few upper class private school brothers too. The statistics are also exaggerated by the media. I mean last year there was a headline figure of 1 black guy getting into OXford when in reality it was more like 70 or so if you include mixed race people - and this is just for undergrad at Oxford. Here are the statistics: http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_univer...ic_origin.html

    I mean from the stats there are roughly 100 South_West asians and 100 Oriental asians getting in. Doesn't seem really disproportionate to have roughly 70 black guys getting in.
    • 10 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    IMO no.5 is wrong, the rest are absolutely fine.

    However, take the 'white' bit out of 5, and perhaps controversially I would say it is also acceptable. Some people go down that route and networking is a good skill to have in business.

    The thing to remember (again IMO) is that businesses aren't like education, they shouldn't have to be fair. Why should they give a crap if you aren't smart enough, connected enough or educated enough? They should be allowed to spend their money on the best employees by whatever definition they like (barring racism and the like as that's clearly baseless).

    :rolleyes:
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.


    This is not okay in my books. It is elitist because those who have more resources can prepare themselves better for the test. The tripartite education system already proved that judging people based solely on intelligence tests does not work. It also implies that those with lower IQ scores are somehow less worthy. To be honest I'm not quite sure why people think this is ok. IQ is also mostly inherited which would mean that certain employment opportunities are denied to you from the moment you are born.

    Scenario 2

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

    This is already being done anyway.

    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.

    I suspect this is already being done but it means that students who go to universities lower in the league tables are already having doors shut.

    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.

    It is quite elitist which would be okay if we were talking about a society or club but not an organisation seeking to employ people, surely.


    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.

    Just plain racist. Not OK and not legal.

    It would be interesting to hear your thoughts!

    Vazzyb
    There you go.
    • 10 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)

    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.


    This is not okay in my books. It is elitist because those who have more resources can prepare themselves better for the test. The tripartite education system already proved that judging people based solely on intelligence tests does not work. It also implies that those with lower IQ scores are somehow less worthy. To be honest I'm not quite sure why people think this is ok. IQ is also mostly inherited which would mean that certain employment opportunities are denied to you from the moment you are born.

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

    This is already being done anyway.

    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.

    I suspect this is already being done but it means that students who go to universities lower in the league tables are already having doors shut.

    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.

    It is quite elitist which would be okay if we were talking about a society or club but not an organisation seeking to employ people, surely.

    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.

    Just plain racist. Not OK and not legal.

    There you go.
    Scenario 1 - It's not OK for companies to want clever people? Practically every company I've applied to asked me to do aptitude tests, which are essentially the same as IQ tests. It's perfectly acceptable, why should they not want to employ able people?

    Scenario 2 - "this is being done already". So are 1-4. What is your point?

    Scenario 3 - I've not gone to one of the top 10 uni's, but I still don't see why this is wrong. A company has no obligation to hear you, or to pay to have someone read your application / bring you to interview etc. Why shouldn't they have the right to pick certain universities which in their experience produce better candidates so as to cut down on the excessive number of applications?

    Scenario 4 - This isn't one I've come across, but if the job involves persuading rich people then I again don't see why this is wrong. You're picking a candidate who is going to be better suited to the position.

    On 5 we agree.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    Scenario 1 - It's not OK for companies to want clever people? Practically every company I've applied to asked me to do aptitude tests, which are essentially the same as IQ tests. It's perfectly acceptable, why should they not want to employ able people?

    Scenario 2 - "this is being done already". So are 1-4. What is your point?

    Scenario 3 - I've not gone to one of the top 10 uni's, but I still don't see why this is wrong. A company has no obligation to hear you, or to pay to have someone read your application / bring you to interview etc. Why shouldn't they have the right to pick certain universities which in their experience produce better candidates so as to cut down on the excessive number of applications?

    Scenario 4 - This isn't one I've come across, but if the job involves persuading rich people then I again don't see why this is wrong. You're picking a candidate who is going to be better suited to the position.

    On 5 we agree.
    I'm talking about what I see as morally right, not about what's legal or what companies are already doing.

    I'm not going to debate on the IQ point as it's subjective. I just think it's unfair. But you're pretty right-wing if you think it's OK to employ only rich people or people from a certain university.
    • 10 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    I'm talking about what I see as morally right, not about what's legal or what companies are already doing.

    I'm not going to debate on the IQ point as it's subjective. I just think it's unfair. But you're pretty right-wing if you think it's OK to employ only rich people or people from a certain university.
    I don't think it's that subjective to be honest. Why should companies not want to hire smart people? Welcome to the real world.

    People from a certain university - absolutely. You don't get in to top universities easily, you get in through hard work and ability. Then you slave away for three years getting a degree from a top institution. Why can't employers target universities that they believe (rightly on average IMO) produce better students?

    As for rich people, I did not say that nor do I support that. Nor did the OP say that.
    • 27 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Those applicants who are the best for the job should be hired . . . hiring the best doesn't make you a bad person.

    Obv 5 is just plain racism though, and unacceptable.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    I don't think it's that subjective to be honest. Why should companies not want to hire smart people? Welcome to the real world.

    People from a certain university - absolutely. You don't get in to top universities easily, you get in through hard work and ability. Then you slave away for three years getting a degree from a top institution. Why can't employers target universities that they believe (rightly on average IMO) produce better students?

    As for rich people, I did not say that nor do I support that. Nor did the OP say that.
    If that's the real world, stop it spinning, I want out. I have an average IQ but I'd hate to think that was a reflection of my ability to do a job.

    Yes but then again not everybody who has the ability to study at a top university will end up doing so. My grades are good enough to get me into a university further up the league table than the one I currently attend, but i chose not to apply. :dontknow: A lot of incredibly bright students with all the right grades also get turned down from these universities simply because there aren't enough places.

    You did say that, re read your post. "if the job involves persuading rich people then I again don't see why this is wrong. You're picking a candidate who is going to be better suited to the position"
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)


    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.


    This is not okay in my books. It is elitist because those who have more resources can prepare themselves better for the test. The tripartite education system already proved that judging people based solely on intelligence tests does not work. It also implies that those with lower IQ scores are somehow less worthy. To be honest I'm not quite sure why people think this is ok. IQ is also mostly inherited which would mean that certain employment opportunities are denied to you from the moment you are born.

    Well, I think employers will want people who are prepared. And in many fields you need to be smart to get on with the work at hand. You would not want an engineer, or doctor to be unintelligent. This is called teleological (purpose) reasoning/ morality- you may look it up if you're interested. IQ is not completely inherited anyway but a partially heritable trait, and if you really tried hard you could improve.

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

    This is already being done anyway.

    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.

    I suspect this is already being done but it means that students who go to universities lower in the league tables are already having doors shut.

    Finite resources and too many applications I'm afraid.

    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.

    It is quite elitist which would be okay if we were talking about a society or club but not an organisation seeking to employ people, surely.

    Kinda agree because there are talented people outside elite unis and seems like the company is making decisions on a misinformed principle. Although you could invoke the finite resources and not enough time argument again.

    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.

    Just plain racist. Not OK and not legal.

    We have found some common ground at last. This claim is baseless- also not at all meritocratic unlike some of the previous kinds of selection

    It would be interesting to hear your thoughts!
    Tharr she blows.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blutooth)
    Tharr she blows.
    :confused:

    Oh you edited it :rolleyes:
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    :confused:

    Oh you edited it :rolleyes:
    Lol that's cute; you must have that average iq that you so claim. Just joking
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blutooth)
    Lol that's cute; you must have that average iq that you so claim. Just joking
    Well I do, I have no reason to make that up. I am a bit thick. It's not really an insult since I acknowledge it. There's not an awful lot I can do about it since my family are pretty average/ below average.

    Pardon me for not paying much attention to the post you quoted, it is nearly 2am after all. And the font you used wasn't radically different.

    Of course employers will want individuals who are "prepared", but what I was saying is that the upper/middle classes will have more resources to get "prepared" than the working class.

    On the whole I'm just a bit alarmed by what a lot of people on here consider to be "absolutely fine". I don't think anybody wants to be denied a job just because they didn't go to Oxbridge. But that's just me and my silly little brain.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    Well I do, I have no reason to make that up. I am a bit thick. It's not really an insult since I acknowledge it.

    Pardon me for not paying much attention to the post you quoted, it is nearly 2am after all.

    Of course employers will want individuals who are "prepared", but what I was saying is that the upper/middle classes will have more resources to get "prepared" than the working class.

    I was just joking about the earlier comment I say dumb stuff all the time.
    I don't think intelligence is something so easily quantified by IQ tests, and I think it's possible to get smarter/ dumber over long periods of time. Intelligence is dynamic. Abstinence from booze and parties seems to have made me dumber, so I'm trying get back into my groove..

    Anyway, about your other point

    Not necessarily true. By the time you are 18 you can motivate yourself to get prepared for a job regardless of social background. We've all got to take responsibility for ourselves at some point...
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blutooth)
    I was just joking about the earlier comment I say dumb stuff all the time.
    I don't think intelligence is something so easily quantified by IQ tests, and I think it's possible to get smarter/ dumber over long periods of time. Intelligence is dynamic. Abstinence from booze and parties seems to have made me dumber, so I'm trying get back into my groove..

    Anyway, about your other point

    Not necessarily true. By the time you are 18 you can motivate yourself to get prepared for a job regardless of social background. We've all got to take responsibility for ourselves at some point...
    I presume you're doing a degree at Oxford so you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it. Especially in the current climate.

    It's been pretty much proven that IQ is fixed and stable over time.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    I presume you're doing a degree at Oxford so you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it. Especially in the current climate.

    It's been pretty much proven that IQ is fixed and stable over time.
    Can't deny that the Oxford badge of honour helps when it comes to getting jobs, but I would still think the main determinant of success in the jobs market is how committed and focused you are.

    Don't agree with the last line one bit. Most children/teenagers can't do mathematical, linguistic or problem-solving tasks that adults do, why? It's not only because they are less knowledgeable but also because they are less intelligent. The way I see it, intelligence feeds off practice and knowledge. The more knowledgeable you become, the more information your brain can draw from and the smarter you get. The immutability of IQ is just a rumour that has been perpetrated by quasi- scientific academics to get into Mensa , put other classes or races down and advance their own political agendas .

    Anyway, gonna get some shuteye. It's been nice talking to you.
    • 10 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    If that's the real world, stop it spinning, I want out. I have an average IQ but I'd hate to think that was a reflection of my ability to do a job.
    :007:

    I'm afraid it is the real world and it is a reflection on your aptitude towards certain jobs. That's not to say it is the case for everyone, nor is it to say intelligence is important in all positions or situations (it's far from the most important thing IMO).

    However the fact of the matter is that IQ is a very good indicator of ability WHEN put in context with other assessments. It is not great on its own (before someone points out the geniuses who are out there that can't tie their own shoes), but it is a viable part of a collection of assessments (and one used a lot for that purpose). Cognitive complexity has been researched in depth if you're interested in learning more, I certainly am not!

    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    Yes but then again not everybody who has the ability to study at a top university will end up doing so. My grades are good enough to get me into a university further up the league table than the one I currently attend, but i chose not to apply. :dontknow: A lot of incredibly bright students with all the right grades also get turned down from these universities simply because there aren't enough places.
    Oh dear, life isn't fair. Move on? I hate to sound harsh, but you're still in the education mindset where everyone should have an equal opportunity. That's not how the world works. Whatever the reason for you not going to a top 10 university (and again I stress, I'm not in one of those either), that is your own problem. From the employers prospective they can view top universities as a filter on applications. While that filter may not be perfect (there will be good candidates denied an opportunity) it may make very good business sense due to the costs of interviewing 1000s of applicants.

    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    You did say that, re read your post. "if the job involves persuading rich people then I again don't see why this is wrong. You're picking a candidate who is going to be better suited to the position"
    At no point have I said people should be given a job because they are rich.. That is not the scenario the OP presented in the fourth option. They said if the position involves persuading rich people to invest (a viable job), then is it OK to only look at certain universities. This doesn't involve the candidate being rich, it involves them having gone to a posh university like Oxford (which you do not have to be rich to attend). That does present a certain image and I see no issue with employers capitalising on that.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blutooth)
    Can't deny that the Oxford badge of honour helps when it comes to getting jobs, but I would still think the main determinant of success in the jobs market is how committed and focused you are.

    Don't agree with the last line one bit. Most children/teenagers can't do mathematical, linguistic or problem-solving tasks that adults do, why? It's not only because they are less knowledgeable but also because they are less intelligent. The way I see it, intelligence feeds off practice and knowledge. The more knowledgeable you become, the more information your brain can draw from and the smarter you get. The immutability of IQ is just a rumour that has been perpetrated by quasi- scientific academics to get into Mensa , put other classes or races down and advance their own political agendas .

    Anyway, gonna get some shuteye. It's been nice talking to you.
    Children and teenagers are not less intelligent than adults :facepalm: that's not how it works. in any case there are specialised iq tests for children of various ages in proportion to their stage of development. So a child wouldn't take the same iq test as an adult as that would be unfair.

    If I'm 20 and I have a lower than average iq there is little i can do to change that.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    :007:

    I'm afraid it is the real world and it is a reflection on your aptitude towards certain jobs. That's not to say it is the case for everyone, nor is it to say intelligence is important in all positions or situations (it's far from the most important thing IMO).

    However the fact of the matter is that IQ is a very good indicator of ability WHEN put in context with other assessments. It is not great on its own (before someone points out the geniuses who are out there that can't tie their own shoes), but it is a viable part of a collection of assessments (and one used a lot for that purpose). Cognitive complexity has been researched in depth if you're interested in learning more, I certainly am not!



    Oh dear, life isn't fair. Move on? I hate to sound harsh, but you're still in the education mindset where everyone should have an equal opportunity. That's not how the world works. Whatever the reason for you not going to a top 10 university (and again I stress, I'm not in one of those either), that is your own problem. From the employers prospective they can view top universities as a filter on applications. While that filter may not be perfect (there will be good candidates denied an opportunity) it may make very good business sense due to the costs of interviewing 1000s of applicants.



    At no point have I said people should be given a job because they are rich.. That is not the scenario the OP presented in the fourth option. They said if the position involves persuading rich people to invest (a viable job), then is it OK to only look at certain universities. This doesn't involve the candidate being rich, it involves them having gone to a posh university like Oxford (which you do not have to be rich to attend). That does present a certain image and I see no issue with employers capitalising on that.
    oh dear god you have said so many things that are BS i cant even be bothered to answer to them. People don't get equal opportunities in real life, that's true, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't.
    • 10 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blutooth)
    Can't deny that the Oxford badge of honour helps when it comes to getting jobs, but I would still think the main determinant of success in the jobs market is how committed and focused you are.

    Don't agree with the last line one bit. Most children/teenagers can't do mathematical, linguistic or problem-solving tasks that adults do, why? It's not only because they are less knowledgeable but also because they are less intelligent. The way I see it, intelligence feeds off practice and knowledge. The more knowledgeable you become, the more information your brain can draw from and the smarter you get. The immutability of IQ is just a rumour that has been perpetrated by quasi- scientific academics to get into Mensa , put other classes or races down and advance their own political agendas .

    Anyway, gonna get some shuteye. It's been nice talking to you.
    You're mistaking intelligence with knowledge. IQ tests don't require knowledge, it's all puzzle solving. Either you think that way or you do not. You can't draw upon practical experience and knowledge in order to know which image comes next in a sequence!

    That's not to say you can't improve by practising the tests (although IMO this rather defeats the purpose unless you can practice in real life situations), but you will only improve so much as it is ultimately an aptitude test. Also Mensa does consider the age of children, they require lower scores to gain a place. So it is fair to say there is some leeway up until 16 (I believe, might be 14).

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 6, 2012
New on TSR

Moving on from GCSEs

What advice would you give someone starting A-levels?

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.