Thank you!
I also have one more unrelated question- I was wondering what kind of practical steps do firms in general take to ensure diversity during the recruitment process? For instance, I've seen photos of some firms' winter scheme intakes and the disparity between the firms with a good mix and those without were quite big so I just wanted to get a good understanding before making any judgements.
Main issue is actually attracting applicants that are diverse. That’s why so many firms put efforts into various diversity initiatives/events to try and improve the number of applications they receive from specific demographics.
One major issue with winter schemes are that they are typically either for, or more represented by, non-law graduates. Getting BAME applicants from non-law degree is far more difficult than getting them from law degrees. Happy to explain the reasons for this if anyone wants me to.
Once you’ve got past the application stage, then there are a series of measures firms put in place that a candidate will never be aware of to ensure diversity is maintained. These include:
- monitoring adverse impact: those delays in finding out whether you have been successful post online test are sometimes down to firms waiting for enough candidates to take the test so they can monitor adverse impact. Basically there is a “good practice” rule where if less than 80% of one demographic gets through compared to the other demographic, then it is deemed to have adverse impact. Firms will typically try do things to reduce that, typically be lowering benchmarks/test scores. They also then may replace that particular assessment the following year.
- Unconscious bias training for assessors: for some firms, anyone involved in the recruitment process will have to complete mandatory training around unconscious bias
- CV blind recruitment processes - even if you provide information to a firm, it is sometimes the case your assessors will receive very limited personal information on you. Sometimes information is redacted out so your assessors only get relevant information about you (eg typically your university is redacted out)
- Diversity monitoring - data analysis that looks at how many people are getting to each stage. It may not impact the recruitment there and then, but is likely to impact future recruitment cycles if they find any concerning drops.
On top of the above, there will be a number of things you do see in the recruitment process:
- Contextualised recruitment systems
- Panel interviews or multiple assessors at assessment centre (reduces the risk of unconscious bias)
- CV blind recruitment processes
- Competitions/events that act as fast-track to assessment centres
- Scholarships/bursaries
I wouldn’t just assume because a photo looks undiverse that it means it actually is though. Diversity comes in many forms - most of them are not seen forms of diversity. Just because a photo of an intake looks “white” that doesn’t show their socio-economic background (working class white men are now the most under represented groups in university and professional jobs), their sexual identity (and even their gender), whether they have a disability, and age isn’t always clear too.
But even if you are sat there thinking “I’m not represented in that group, so I won’t apply”, I would strongly encourage you to
not do so. You’re only playing your part (albeit very small) in contributing to the problem rather than improving it.
I’ve been in instances where I have thrown every effort I can into improving diversity in an intake. Everything has looked good up until the later stages of the recruitment process and then due to people withdrawing their applications or declining offers, the end results weren’t as strong. There are multiple bits of evidence to show that minority groups are also far more likely to accept their first job offer than hold out for multiple offers. So sometimes there are a lot of things are out of the recruiter’s/firm’s control.
Also, people choosing the “choose not to disclose” option on equal opportunities questionnaires is often not helpful. Obviously everyone has a right to choose this option, but if recruiters are relying on reports of people disclosing to monitor intake diversity, and say 20-30% of your hired intake don’t complete their equal oops questions or choose the “do not disclose” option, your diversity data looks very different to what your “seen” diversity could be assumed to be.
