I read an article yesterday morning about "elite firms" in the UK preferring "privileged candidates". We are halfway through the second decade of the 21st century and still the idea that talent and privilege go hand in hand persists, at least in some quarters. Why, I have no idea.
There are elite firms that have used such criteria as "the candidate's accent and experience of travelling". Because both of those are such valuable indicators of a person's ability to do a job. Well, actually, no. They mean nothing when it comes to how well they can work with others or do their job without playing about on Facebook or Twitter. They could be absolutely useless in the job. But as long as they have the "right" accent and have travelled widely, right?
There is a side effect of this cherry picking of candidates, though. As if that were not bad enough, those of us who do not fit the narrow definition of the profile are defined as "disadvantaged". Are we really? Is it really a disadvantage to have an accent that fits in with a regional drama? Or a disadvantage to have travelled less than someone else? Or a disadvantage to have less money than someone else? If you are an interviewer with an "elite firm" then I suppose so. But that is about the interviewer's perception. They perceive these things to be a negative in the context of weeding out candidates for a job with their firm. But outside the context of applying for a job with that firm? No. Anyone of any background of any accent can make it in life if they just have the drive to succeed. But apparently some firms do not recognise this. Maybe they will eventually. Probably by about 3015.
No comments:
Post a Comment