Oxford Magdalen rejection letter

[Fab Foodie]

I don't put the (Oxon) after my degree. I don't think it's relevant, however when I got the job I am now doing, the interviewers seemed more excited by the Oxford degree than by my subsequent MSc, PhD and 10 years of teaching and research experience. Sad, but true.

Not to mention your CC posting history ....

 

[srw]

I don't put the (Oxon) after my degree. I don't think it's relevant, however when I got the job I am now doing, the interviewers seemed more excited by the Oxford degree than by my subsequent MSc, PhD and 10 years of teaching and research experience. Sad, but true.

That's colonials for you - easily impressed by something with a history.

I am merely happy to be able to put MA FIA after my name.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

I am merely happy to be able to put MA FIA after my name.

Blimey, are you Don Corleone?

 

[Paladin - York]

Blimey, are you Don Corleone?

aka "Teflon Don"

 

[mangaman]

Lawyers are supposed to be discreet, unflappable, rational. They should demonstrate maturity of thought and action and form opinions based on careful consideration of all the facts. They should not allow personal prejudices to get in the way of the client's best interests.

She's not exactly unemployable, but if I were a recruiter faced with someone who got in the papers at 18 for mocking up a rejection letter to a university she'd have to have to demonstrate more maturity and quality of thought in her university career than she showed in her Guardian column.

This was my point too.

Not so much her letter, which was just a bit of silliness.

Her subsequent behaviour and comments were worse. Especially when she said
"I spent my entire time there laughing at how seriously everything was being taken."

As others have said, good jobs are at a premium for young people and I wasn't suggested she should be blackballed from any jobs in the future, however I imagine jobs in law are pretty competitive and one would expect the candidates to take the interview seriously and not spend the whole time laughing.

 

[User482]

I don't put the (Oxon) after my degree. I don't think it's relevant, however when I got the job I am now doing, the interviewers seemed more excited by the Oxford degree than by my subsequent MSc, PhD and 10 years of teaching and research experience. Sad, but true.

It's important if you're claiming the masters they give you for being alive 6 years after graduating...

 

[marinyork]

Quite. It isn't as if graduate recruiters have a shortage of good candidates to chose from, so not only do the successful ones have to stand out, they also have to avoid giving the employer a reason to choose someone else. I'm sure plenty of recruiters would have some sympathy, having done daft things themselves in the past, and would recognise a bit of silliness that went too far, but that doesn't mean they'll want to give her the job when they can easily choose someone else who is a lower risk. Of course, she ought to be able to put this behind her in a few years with some work experience, but will need to demonstrate a bit more humility first.

Well I'm glad you actually said this. Since in my view there is far, far too much negativity about future generations of graduates. We often here that there are 'too many' of them and not so much the 'good' bit but the inability and laziness of recruiters to actually put in some work to be able to distinguish (oh the horror). I think there is a tendency for older people to take their and other degrees from people their generation extremely seriously and then go round trashing the current generation. So I am pleased at least someone on here would say this.

Some have you have made slightly better cases for why her actions might be a problem, but of course I am well known for disliking people being able to 'know' things in recruitment/interview processes that are really completely subjective and then rationalised later.

 

[Riding in Circles]

I don't put the (Oxon) after my degree. I don't think it's relevant, however when I got the job I am now doing, the interviewers seemed more excited by the Oxford degree than by my subsequent MSc, PhD and 10 years of teaching and research experience. Sad, but true.

Champagne socialist.

 

[srw]

Some have you have made slightly better cases for why her actions might be a problem, but of course I am well known for disliking people being able to 'know' things in recruitment/interview processes that are really completely subjective and then rationalised later.

Put yourself into the recruiter's shoes. You're trying to recruit an undergraduate or recent graduate for a job which doesn't directly relate to their studies. You might, if you're lucky, get the results of a (subjective) assessment centre. For some of them you've got a degree result, but then you need to weigh up the relative merits of different classes of degrees in different subjects from different universities. And you're probably not a regular recruiter - you do this once or twice a year. You've probably got 20 candidates, who on paper all look as good as each other. You have to go on your feelings during interview - there simply isn't time to intellectualise.

Recruitment is never easy, at any level. Indeed, it's amazing that so often the right person is found.

 

[marinyork]

Put yourself into the recruiter's shoes. You're trying to recruit an undergraduate or recent graduate for a job which doesn't directly relate to their studies. You might, if you're lucky, get the results of a (subjective) assessment centre. For some of them you've got a degree result, but then you need to weigh up the relative merits of different classes of degrees in different subjects from different universities. And you're probably not a regular recruiter - you do this once or twice a year. You've probably got 20 candidates, who on paper all look as good as each other. You have to go on your feelings during interview - there simply isn't time to intellectualise.

I have thought about this, I have actually read a fair bit on graduate recruitment - why I have commented on it from time to time. Funnily enough I am not completely living in a vacuum either having had experience and many people I know having gone to work in your sector among many others. Some books are very critical of the amount of training that people get to do interviews and how the trend to view people as 'oven ready' candidates and then be derogatory and dismissive of anyone that doesn't fulfil these high expectations. As for what you've said not that any of that changes it much as I would say everything you have said is completely obvious to someone that knows nothing about it, if they only thought it through. Anyway.

I would stress that it is the perception of how it relates to their studies. A lot of that perception comes from simply how it is named. Many people haven't got the faintest clue as to what many university subjects really 'are' although many are charitable enough to waffle on a bit about 'transferable skills' whether a solid idea or not (and it will be a solid idea in the minds of some people, just not all, which is my point). In any case one shouldn't really be trading on the name of a university or subject to get a job. Thankfully in the future this silly business is probably going to end and people will be given a piece of paper that actually says what they studied on it and a bit about them.

Why wouldn't one intellectualise? If one went on feelings during an interview one would end up with things like the Dunning-Kruger effect in some cases or various other very well known biases in interviews (which only better people such as yourself will own up to happening).

Recruitment is never easy, at any level. Indeed, it's amazing that so often the right person is found.

I think that is one thing we can agree on.

 

[Maz]

Without googling or looking through this thread, etc, who can remember the name of this girl? Be honest. Not many, I suspect.

 

[yello]

Marion Faithful?

As I said, her 15 minutes have been well spent!

 

[MissTillyFlop]

I respect her beliefs and decision entirely. What baffles me is...



...then why did she apply to go there? I'm not entirely sure what or who she's trying to draw attention to. On a scale of world injustices, it's hardly up there imho.

She says herself that she was drawn into believing that she needed to at least apply there to prove something.

 

[yello]

She says herself that she was drawn into believing that she needed to at least apply there to prove something.

And I can appreciate that. As I said, we've all thought better of something when already on the road to doing it. What I think was foolish and rash was to then react in the way that she did once she'd realised Oxford wasn't for her.

 

[User169]

Without googling or looking through this thread, etc, who can remember the name of this girl? Be honest. Not many, I suspect.

Indeed. I thought the letter was a reasonably amusing send-up of some of Magdalen’s comments in the wake of the Laura Spence affair (remember her?).