‘I have a type’: City recruiter faces backlash for favouring Russell Group grads

Avatar photo

By Thomas Connelly on

33

Since apologised

The Russell Group universities
The Russell Group universities

A City recruiter sparked controversy on LinkedIn this week by revealing his preference for hiring Russell Group graduates, telling his connections he’s “not settling for average” when filling open roles.

Harry Green, associate director at Griffin Recruitment, began his post by explaining that, when it comes to seeking suitable graduates to put forward to his clients, “I have a certain type…👀”

Green has since made a further post in which he apologises, acknowledging that, in hindsight, his comments were “misjudged”.

The original post explained that his preference is for graduates from Russell Group universities — a group of 24 UK institutions — selected “not for the prestige, but for the journey they’ve undertaken to get there.

Green argues that these universities typically set a higher bar for entry, which he believes reflects graduates’ “strong work ethic and dedication”.

He goes on to stress that he does consider graduates from other unis, evaluating candidates across various factors, including academics, extra-curriculars, work experience, interests, hobbies, and sporting achievements.

Green — who studied at Gloucestershire Uni, a non-Russell Group institution, before completing a master’s at Cambridge, arguably the most prestigious of the group — concludes his post by stating that, with a market flooded with graduates and an increasingly high bar for entry, he’s “not settling for average… I’m on the hunt for superstars!”

It likely comes as no surprise that Green’s post drew over 100 comments, the vast majority of which were critical of his approach to filling vacancies.

Leading the charge was Justin Farrance, a former associate at A&O Shearman and who now leads the Magic Circle players’ diversity and inclusion initiatives.

“Your work ethic, dedication and ‘journey’ Harry points to, is in no way defined by the name of your university or the choices/circumstances you found yourself in at the age of 16-18,” Farrance replies. “Some of the most resilient and impressive friends/mentees I know went to Non-RG unis and are now working at the best global firms.”

APPLY NOW: The Legal Cheek November Virtual Law Fair is under two weeks away

Green — who has nearly four years of recruitment experience in white-collar sectors like legal — also faced criticism from Rebecca Schrod, graduate recruitment manager at Reed Smith. “No one is saying that RG universities don’t provide an excellent education,” she wrote, “but there are academically gifted candidates from many universities or (shock!) some that didn’t go to uni at all.”

Former Magic Circle lawyer Tom Coode-Bate commented that he could sort of understand Green’s approach as a “time-saving measure”, but added, “given it’s 2024 and the importance of social mobility, I’d say this is a relatively weird thing to brag about”.

The post also drew numerous comments from lawyers who didn’t attend a Russell Group university, including Tara Louise Kaby, a trainee solicitor specialising in criminal defence.

“Everyone’s journey is different and that doesn’t mean that they are any less worthy of a role,” Kaby responded. “For example, I chose the university I went to because they ranked high and they were local to me as I was lucky enough to already work in the legal profession and I had to continue to work to fund my studies.”

Kaby goes on to question whether this recruitment approach contributes to the hiring issues in law firms, saying “they just aren’t giving the right people a chance to show just how much they can thrive. Big mistake”.

In response to the strong reaction, Green posted again within the past hour, stating that the feedback “caught me off guard” and expressing that he is “truly sorry” if he caused offence to anyone.

33 Comments

A City law firm partner

Generally speaking he’s probably correct. But don’t stick it on LinkedIn 😂

(120)(21)

Anon

WTF is a City law firm partner doing on legal cheek 😂 if true (unlikely) it sounds like you need to pull your head out of your a*** and do some more BD.

Jane

Yes, he is obviously correct on the whole but we are not allowed to say that these days so all have to pretend like the emperor’s new clothes

Anonymous

The worst thing he did was apologise, because it wasn’t genuine. I don’t agree with the sentiment of his original post, but still, stick to your guns.

Anon

Fool.

Kirkland NQ

Never seen a non-Russell Group grad drive a Lambo

Faz

Cuz most ppl driving a lambo didn’t go to university at all…

Ex-recruiter now US firm Lawyer

To be honest, I totally understand why he said what he said, although I don’t necessarily agree.

I was a recruiter for law firm private practice for almost 5 years before I then went on to become a lawyer. In my 5 years of recruiting I had law firm hiring partners (note, these were the partners themselves not HR!) at top US and Magic Circle firms explicitly say they preferred Oxbridge/Russell group candidates. Even if you sent them 5 CVs you could see immediately they would take less interest in the non-Oxbridge/Russell Group universities. As a recruiter, you knew there was no point putting forward CVs that didn’t tickle the interest of the hiring partners.

Times may have changed now and law firms are more careful about how they market themselves but as long as the old boys remain partners in these firms, it is a biased that still exists among many firms, especially if a hire is for a specific partner who holds those views.

Non-Russell Final Year

It wasn’t a law firm recruiter but a rec2rec so the argument is weaker.

Ex-recruiter now US firm Lawyer

I will also add that since qualifying (I am now coming up to 4PQE) I realised most top law firms don’t advertise roles on their websites but instead they instruct recruiters on mandates (and again, I know this to be true having been on the recruiter side prior to being a lawyer) so when I was looking to move laterally I had to speak to recruiters. I did wonder why it was so hard to just look at a job board and see roles at the Law firms I wanted to apply to, but it makes sense that those law firms don’t want jusy any Tom Dick and Harry to submit their CVs so they purposely instruct recruiters on these exclusive mandates so the recruiters can approach the top Oxbridge/RG 2.1/1st class candidates without the law firms themselves having to say explicitly on their job postings that that’s what they want.

So again, I’m not saying this is the right approach for the legal industry, but is the unfortunate truth.

Seriously?

Shocking in this day and age that someone recruiting in a highly competitive and oversubscribed industry would prefer graduates with degrees from the best universities. Disgusting.

Anon

I have no idea why this type of approach is so criticised – we’ve been so interested in getting ‘woke’ that going to a prestigious university seems to not matter at all. Whilst it’s certainly true that good students can come from non RG unis and vice versa, it’s completely factual to say the average RG student is smarter and more diligent than the average non RG student.

The grades and extracurricular achieved during uni are also more impressive in RG unis, which typically set higher standards for work and give a higher workload to students (leaving less time for non-academic pursuits). This is coming from someone who attends Warwick currently, and I know the same distinction is true when comparing an Oxbridge student and someone at my own university.

By viewing every uni as equal, we discount the efforts and successes of many students.

An NRG grad

I appreciate the perspective you’re coming from and can see why you might feel that the distinction between Russell Group (RG) and non-RG universities has merit. However, I believe that focusing so heavily on the “prestige” of institutions can sometimes overlook more meaningful factors that determine a student’s capabilities, growth, and contributions.

First, while RG universities are known for high entry requirements, excellent research output, and rigorous academic standards, the idea that this makes the average RG student “smarter” or “more diligent” is more nuanced than it appears. Students choose universities based on many factors, not simply academic ability—such as location, finances, course specifics, and personal circumstances. These factors mean that some highly talented, hardworking students attend non-RG universities by choice, not as a reflection of lesser capability. Many employers increasingly recognise that students’ practical skills, resilience, and interpersonal qualities often matter more than the name of their university.

Moreover, workload intensity and grading standards are not exclusive to RG universities. Many non-RG universities have demanding programs and exceptional teaching staff. Quality and rigour often vary more by the individual program than by the institution as a whole. This makes sweeping generalisations about an entire cohort of students problematic. Additionally, extracurricular activities and non-academic pursuits can contribute just as much to a student’s overall skills and employability. Skills such as leadership, adaptability, and time management are cultivated both inside and outside the classroom. Non-RG students who balance academics with other activities can often develop these crucial abilities more comprehensively.

Furthermore, viewing every university as “equal” is not the same as discounting achievements. It’s about broadening our understanding of what “achievement” and “merit” look like, acknowledging that students’ successes are valuable no matter where they were earned. Focusing on prestige and exclusivity risks undermining the confidence and worth of many talented students who didn’t attend RG institutions but are just as capable and ambitious as their RG counterparts.

In essence, uni is only one step in a person’s educational and professional journey. Ultimately, it’s the skills, achievements, and growth individuals demonstrate in their careers—not where they studied—that define their success and potential.

Rae Crooter

Still for all that, the vast majority of the best do go to the best unis and the hassle and cost of finding the odd nugget elsewhere is just not worth it in the real business world.

Scout

Looking outside the RG like football scout for a big club looking around in league two. Sure there might be a player who wasn’t picked up earlier, but it’s too much effort for a long shot.

Anonymous

Good thing there are A-Level grades and contextual recruitment then for those who pick non-RG for whatever reason over a (good) RG uni.

Top-2 RG student

From someone who studied their undergrad at the University of Gloucestershire – wow never ever heard of it until now. LOLs

Observer

The ‘Russell Group’ is a marketing trick that puts a veneer of prestige on lots of oversized and mediocre institutions…

Xxxx

It’s rare nowadays to find a trainee at any of the city firms that isn’t from Russell group (or somewhere like bath). I don’t think this is controversial

Anon

Grades alone don’t make a good lawyer.

Alan

I hope all the wokeists feel proud shouting down someone with a perfectly sensible recruitment strategy. Heaven forbid we recruit the smartest and brightest graduates.

This is symptomatic of how far this country has gone wrong. I only hope we can look to our cousins in the US for inspiration on how to get things right.

Hoist with their own petard

The apology wasn’t even an apology. Instead of taking food for thought, their following post was meaningless and just caused more upset.

Instead of realising the original post was one of many factors alive and affecting recruitment and the legal sector, they usurped it for their own agenda, making it entirely about them.

Furthermore, calling it a “debate”, is wrong – frankly this needs to be framed as a discussion and not one where a losing party is desired.

The audacity to offend so many across the board then say the “backlash” has resulted in comments and messages that were “personal” and “hurtful”.

Not nice when you’re on the receiving end, is it? Have shame.

Truth hurts

Truth hurts innit

People in glass houses

The irony of someone from A&O Sherman criticising others for saying university name matters. Let’s have a look to see where A&O themselves recruit from:

Of the 18 law fairs A&O attended in 2024, only 4 were non-RG (and one of those was St Andrews).

93% of A&O’s current trainees are from RG unis, only 3% are from non-RG.

A&O have a minimum A-level requirement of AAB, excluding the majority on non-RG unis.

But sure, university name doesn’t matter… *rolls eyes*

A&Who

If they’re gonna talk the talk, they should walk the walk too. How about they commit to recruiting at least 50% non-RG trainees in the next cycle?

Anonymous

Why would they create a ticking time bomb that would explode and destroy the firm when no one is capable of being a partner?

Anonymous

Sure but they can ask for the best because they are among the best. Unless we affirmative action for those who are mediocre (and therefore should apply for less elite firms)

He's right

Sadly, one has to dilute the potential recruitment base down to the lower echelons of the Russell Group because of the crass woke discrimination of talented private school educated students. Oxbridge no longer offers places to the best, as they have preferred diversity drivel.

Rae Crooter

Don’t see what the problem is. It’s an efficient way of letting someone else sort the wheat from the chaff. Or at least almost all the wheat from a large proportion of the chaff.

Academic Reality

The academic bar for becoming a solicitor in the UK has never been higher, with the most recent SQE1 pass rate dropping to just 44%. However, candidates with a 1st class degree had a significantly higher pass rate of 71%. Firms invest thousands in putting future trainees through the SQE, and the Russell Group threshold helps mitigate the risk of failure by selecting candidates who have already proven their academic excellence. It’s not about elitism.

Retired multi millionaire lawyer

It’s obvious. It’s like why do universities even have rankings or entry requirements, competitive process for entry etc? They are already selecting the best and then aim to offer a higher level of education and university experience. All degrees are not equal and that is why the Ivy league and Russel group universities dominate on wall street and magic circle law firms etc. They produce more leading figures in society and more millionaires then any other universities. The world is a competitive place and to be the best, companies need the best.

AJC

You have to set the bar somewhere and whereas a good grade degree from the RG is a sign of strong academic achievement, and suggests that the candidate will likely succeed at the required level, that is only a likelihood. I qualified at Linklaters in the early 80’s and many holders of firsts/2.1s who qualified with me elected to work elsewhere and for more money, because they disliked the transaction pressure. It is safe to assume that if you do not have the intellectual clout you then you will not last long at the highest level and the top firms obviously need to maximise the chances of you staying on and becoming a partner. One of the most successful partners in my cohort (just retired) at Linklaters was a Buckingham grad and just flourished because he knew how blue chip business works and was very good in handling people. Bar or no bar, who makes the grade is down to self – belief and the faith your employers have in you. In most cases, though a good degree should be a starting point.

Anon

Super dumb. I’d take a non RG graduate with 8 years of talent incubation at a MC firm over a double first Oxbridge graduate with 8 years of silver circle experience, any day of the week. It’s the knowledge that get’s bestowed on you and the deal experience that really counts.

Join the conversation