Law firms lead the way in latest social mobility index

Surprised you made it here to comment on this post – you seem like the sort that spends most of his time leaving angry messages on Telegraph/Daily Mail articles about how the country is going to the dogs, etc.

Nobody is suggesting that partners are sitting around large tables passing the port to the left and deciding which are the most working-class associates to boot out, or trainees not to retain. What people are suggesting, which the data backs up, is that unconscious biases etc can lead to socially mobile people not progressing in the same way as “privileged” (for want of a better term, and one to which I’m sure you’ll take exception) because they are socially different from the incumbent group who make the decisions.

That incumbent group recognise ‘good’ as being certain (elite, public) schools, a certain accent, certain travel experiences, a certain worldview – and all of the ‘good’ (often ‘great’) which sits outside of that accepted status quo is subconsciously seen as lesser because it’s not really understood. The second side of the coin is that it becomes impossible for the people who fall outside of the ‘accepted good’ to learn how to fit into that world because those things are seen by the incumbent decision makers as things that ‘shouldn’t need taught’ (despite the fact that they only know those things because they were taught them as children, without them ever realising it).

Now, take someone who’s grown up maybe below the breadline, with no ‘networks’ of family and friends to give them a steer here, review a CV there, who’s almost certainly been at a state school with extremely limited resources and virtually no careers advice (especially nothing about ‘the City’), who has probably *had* (not chosen) to work part time throughout school and university to be able to meet their basic needs or give money into their family. That person, to become a trainee solicitor, has navigated themselves into university (where, by the way, the gaps in differences in upbringing often become even more noticeable and difficult), they have then navigated themselves through that system and obtained a 2:1 or 1st class degree, they’ve had the wherewithal to seek out and apply for vacation schemes and training contracts. Then they have navigated that process – again, without family or networks to ask the silly questions to in private – and then, from the sea of applicants, they are judged to have the raw skills to become a trainee in an elite City firm. I don’t think anyone could sit and tell me with a straight face that that’s not the sort of person who firms should be desperate for to climb through their ranks, because those people have learned to solve the biggest problems from the youngest ages – because they’ve not had any other option.

Oh, and before you ask about what data actually demonstrates any of what I’ve said, you might want to check out some of the work of Professor Lee Elliot Major and/or The Bridge Group.

I’ve put this comment under my actual name, by the way, so this is a genuine offer to DM me on LinkedIn and we can have a grown-up conversation about it. I have a feeling you won’t – but I would love to be proven wrong.

Alan, I know you struggle when it comes to thinking about things beyond the superficial level but I’ll try and help you.

Do you think it’s possible that the backgrounds and past opportunities of some candidates means they find it harder to fulfil the criteria, as compared to their peers who have had better backgrounds and opportunities? And if so, do you think that firms should be able to spot candidates who they think will be able to improve and progress in the role?