I published my disquiet about a letter from the Big Four accounting firms on the issue of inequality yesterday, suggesting when doing so that they were part of the problem and not the solution.
It seems I was right. The FT reports this morning that:
The world's largest accounting firms have been urged to radically alter their recruitment policies after research found applicants to the sector from low income backgrounds are less likely to be hired than wealthier counterparts.
Applicants from higher income backgrounds had a one in 18 chance of being hired, compared with a one in 22 chance for those from low-income backgrounds, according to the first in-depth study of how socio-economic diversity affects hiring in the accounting profession.
The Bridge Group, a UK-based charitable association that conducted the research, additionally found that candidates for trainee positions who were educated at independent schools had a one in 14 chance of being hired, compared with one in 17 of state school-educated applicants.
So this is very much a case of do as I say, not as I do then.
As I suspected.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The BIG FOUR have “spies” inside every university who identify the smartest amongst the students (not always in “accounting”) who are then monitored. If a particular student appears to be the “sort” who would “fit” into the BIG FOUR’s ethos of screwing the world they will be approached – irrespective of their socio economic group.
It is arguable that those from a more privileged background could be more acquiescent to the ways of the BIG FOUR and fit more into a culture of secrecy and deceit – but you may need to consult a sociologist about this.
If there are such spies I have no idea who they are or where they are
And I work in a university
I am sorry – but this is wrong
The essence of a good spy is to remain concealed either outside of or inside a university (Cambridge Spy Ring: Kim Philby — cryptonym: Stanley, Donald t Maclean — cryptonym: Homer, Guy Burgess cryptonym: Hicks and Anthony Blunt cryptonyms: Tony, Johnson). That you personally don’t know who they are is consistent with their professionalism – and that they make no attempt to “recruit” you is self-explanatory.
It goes on …. and another interested “party” (as well as the Big Four) in clandestine recruitment of university under graduates is MI5/MI6. I personally know two people who were nobbled — one of them successfully. If success is an appropriate word.
I am not wrong.
I am aware that the secret services do approach
But the Big 4 – no sorry; not true
High powered accountants work in the secret services … just as the secret services work with the BIG FOUR. The security of Britain’s economy is a priority for here lies the safety of the nation and the BIG FOUR are hugely influential in delineating wealth via their extensive, international assignments (either by assisting in politically strategic tax evasion or more ethical activities)
The universities are used as recruiting grounds and highly intelligent individuals deemed predisposed/ inclined to clandestine operations are identified and monitored… later to be approached by either or both parties and sometimes employed collectively.
“Boy’s Own” stuff? No the BIG FOUR are more spooky than you appear to believe!
Sorry – but I really do not buy it
The world is not just a conspiracy theory
Big 4 recruitment is flawed but does not work like that
And I am accepting no further comments on that theme
The difference between a 1 in 14 (i.e. 7%) and a 1 in 17 (i.e. 6%) chance of being employed is not hugely significant and I would wager is actually fairly impressive when compared to other graduate-employing industries.
In my experience, Big 4 accountants have some of the best representation of people from low income backgrounds. It is certainly far better than the large law firms (which generally require Oxbridge degrees), medicine (dominated by upper middle class whites), journalism (especially on the Guardian, where an Oxbridge degree and private education is practically a prerequisite, and politics.
The evidence is otherwise – as is well documented, as the FT notes
Your claim that they are good is simply wrong
Is the original report published anywhere? Is the difference between 1-in-14 and 1-in-17 statistically significant? What is the sample size? What test did they use?
The FT article seems to be saying that much of the difference comes from two factors used to screen applicants: A level results, and online tests. Neither seems to be very good at predicting workplace performance.
A level results are correlated with parents’ wealth/incomes, but failures of the school system are not the Big Four’s fault. One could be forgiven for questioning the continued utility of A levels, if they are to be ignored in recruitment.
And online tests apparently filter out people from low income backgrounds and from ethnic minorities. Do we know why?
KPMG published some information last year: https://home.kpmg.com/uk/en/home/media/press-releases/2016/12/kpmg-reveals-employees-parental-occupation-in-a-bid-to-increase-.html
This may all be lip-service from a bunch of hypocrites, as you suggest. Do you think there is a conspiracy among the Big Four to employ their mates’ children, rather than seeking out the best and the brightest, wherever they come from?
The authors are noted
I have not seen the original – but I am sure they would be willing to share it
OK. I looked at http://thebridgegroup.org.uk/ and http://www.accessaccountancy.org/ but could not find it.
Perhaps worth saying, the Big Four appear to be doing an awful lot better than, say, political parties (32% of MPs attended private schools) or the medical profession (51%) or indeed the newspapers (54% of “top” journalists, whatever they are). Or no doubt the top end of the legal profession: City law firms, or barristers, say.
Noted
But a long way to go
ANd I am not cocnvinced there is evidence of real change from them
It’s what used to be called ‘ the old boy network ‘ in its modern ‘psychometrically tested ‘ form. I have friends who’ve been through the process and what ‘ they ‘ , be they accounts, lawyers etc are seeking to discern is , ‘ is he/she one of us ‘ . The methods may change, but the objective doesn’t.
Agreed
I confess I was always surprised I got in
I never quite fitted