Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Romiras" data-source="post: 78635" data-attributes="member: 1993">Don't worry about me missing anything - I am fairly confident that I understand what's being said.I will briefly address a few things that are blatantly missing thoughtfulness though:1. US Firms (and others) can recruit candidates (BAME or not, wealthy or not) because they're good candidates. In fact, I reckon that's their primary criteria, and any access scheme that they may run relates to what's on the tin - access. It's still merit driven. What are you even trying to say when you say this: &quot;By recruiting these individuals, this doesn't solve the wider social economic and class issues at play.&quot;? I didn't know that firms recruited BAME candidates to solve social economic and class issues. It definitely can't be because they're also legitimately strong candidates, much like their White, Male or Female, Wealthy or Not, counterparts.There are no firms that currently run a BAME, Gender or otherwise focused vacation scheme or training contract. You quite literally make it sound like they're doing so, at the expense of better (merit wise) candidates.2. I didn't address you - I'm not sure why you're being on the defensive here. With respect to how you view your posts and what they portray - I think your summary is disingenuous. Statements like: &quot;I really do think firms and people in general need to get away from this &quot;BAME&quot; focus of recruitment. Ethnicity is not the problem. Social and economic background is the real issue here. By hiring &quot;BAME&quot; candidates that have gone to private school and come from wealthy backgrounds, it does not solve the issue, and if anything, makes the problem worse.&quot; quite literally say that you believe &quot;ethnicity is not a problem&quot;. You do know that if you google &quot;BAME initiatives&quot;, you will get hits related to BAME initiatives. I suggest you type in &quot;Social Mobility Initiatives&quot;, &quot;LGBTQ+ initiatives&quot;, &quot;Gender Parity initiatives&quot;, etc. They exist, and co-exist. There's a reason why many firms run multiple of these schemes, and focus on particular issues, because they're difficult to approach in a one-size fits all way. Yet, you've clearly missed the point on that.3. I am glad that you, stating that you are a disadvantaged ethnic minority, makes you an authority figure on what is actually happening with legal recruitment and intersectional representation in the legal industry. I can only hope that your googling is as diverse as your profile (such that you can see that social mobility is indeed a very big thing currently).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Romiras, post: 78635, member: 1993"] Don't worry about me missing anything - I am fairly confident that I understand what's being said. I will briefly address a few things that are blatantly [I]missing[/I] thoughtfulness though: 1. US Firms (and others) can recruit candidates (BAME or not, wealthy or not) because they're good candidates. In fact, I reckon that's their primary criteria, and any access scheme that they may run relates to what's on the tin - access. It's still merit driven. What are you even trying to say when you say this: "[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]By recruiting these individuals, this doesn't solve the wider social economic and class issues at play."[/COLOR]? I didn't know that firms recruited BAME candidates to solve social economic and class issues. It definitely can't be because they're also [U]legitimately strong candidates[/U], much like their White, Male or Female, Wealthy or Not, counterparts. There are[B] no firms[/B] that currently run a BAME, Gender or otherwise focused vacation scheme or training contract. You quite literally make it sound like they're doing so, at the expense of better (merit wise) candidates. 2. I didn't address you - I'm not sure why you're being on the defensive here. With respect to how you view your posts and what they portray - I think your summary is disingenuous. Statements like: [COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]"I really do think firms and people in general need to get away from this "BAME" focus of recruitment. Ethnicity is not the problem. Social and economic background is the real issue here. By hiring "BAME" candidates that have gone to private school and come from wealthy backgrounds, it does not solve the issue, and if anything, makes the problem worse."[/COLOR] quite literally say that you believe "ethnicity is not a problem". You do know that if you google "BAME initiatives", you will get hits related to BAME initiatives. I suggest you type in "Social Mobility Initiatives", "LGBTQ+ initiatives", "Gender Parity initiatives", etc. They exist, and co-exist. There's a reason why many firms run multiple of these schemes, and focus on particular issues, because they're difficult to approach in a one-size fits all way. Yet, you've clearly [U]missed[/U] the point on that. 3. I am glad that you, stating that you are a disadvantaged ethnic minority, makes you an authority figure on what is actually happening with legal recruitment and intersectional representation in the legal industry. I can only hope that your googling is as diverse as your profile (such that you can see that social mobility is indeed a very big thing currently). [/QUOTE]

Verification

Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Search

Search

Reply to thread