Why is it that it is so difficult ("competitive") to get into management consulting if you're not from a red brick university and when you finally get in, you find a whole bunch of red-brickees who don't know any better than you but are handed the opportunities?I thought the intention of these companies is to high the top thinkers with relevant life experience, not red-brickees who have to be told how and when to think (because that's what they're used to).Just wondering ...That's the million dollar question. Every time I bump into a "consultant", I wait to be impressed by their vast and superior knowledge, much to my disappointment. They only guaranteed thing is that they write good reports, but that's more an english grammer issue than a practicality issue.

Perhaps because it's an easy "filter" to apply when considering candidates.

Your generalisations are astounding. So you think your personal experience covers the whole industry. It is just as difficult to get into IB for example. Notwithstanding this, if you think its tough or unfair that consultancies tend to employ people from redbrick uni, have a look at the legal profession. The 'filter' is one argument and a justifiable one. However, firms are not stupid contray to what you may believe, experience obviously paints a picture that people from redbrick unis tend to be able to do the job and excel, it also demonstrates an embryonic experience of achievement. Why not just knuckle down and stop moaning, if your good enough you will succeed, an obstacle only arises when you take your eye of your end goal. Regards

Touche. I'd agree with that - maybe the argument rings true for graduates but your uni and academia should/will become second fiddle to your career experience and may be only referred to if a marginal decision needs to be made.

All consultancies include the CVs of the proposed team when bidding for work with clients. Imagine you are the client, and all of the proposals are roughly the same in terms of pricing BUT one has all red-brick achievers and another proposes consultants from lesser universities. The costs are the same to the client - so which consultancy is the client going to choose? Red-brick universities still carry more gravitas with most FTSE and government organisations, so consultancies like to have their alumni to make their proposals more robust. There is a preception that red-brickees have a more rigourous approach to life (i.e. are brighter or knuckled down to their A-levels harder). Hence the emphasis is more likely placed on candidates from prestigious universities, who will in turn help the prestige of their firm. I'm not saying that it's fair, but it is a fact of life. It's not a trend that can be uninvented, so accept that it happens and work to ensure that your candidature can stand up against the 'chinless wonders' with a blue in embroidery.

Maybe this has been fine in the past, but things slowly change, we are in 2005, people make business decisions on more sophisticated criteria, certain jobs require something more than just structure or prestige, business is becoming more complex and varied. New, more competitive consulting firms will emerge, as well as new, more competitive consultants. With less bricks and more ROI.

I know of a specific example where in a group of five candidates hired, four are typical red-brickees and one is from a university that just made top 100. Interestingly though, the "underdog" has led a far more interesting life, met really important people (locally and internationally), has delivered high quality, high finance projects in the past job and got a first class degree. basically, the underdog is full of "life" and has a proven record of handling high profile individuals (which is good for the consultancy). ....On the other hand, the red-brickees have....mmmm...oh, that's it, they have nothing other than the fact that they are red-brickees. If I were hiring, I would invert the useless equilibrium and give the red-brickees a chance to earn their name. I wouldn't just take them at face value as many other firms do. In fact, this almost automatic red-brick favouring filtration system is the reason why productivity is lowest in the service sectors. The kids are book smart (memorising theories) but Sir Alan Sugar and, or Richard Branson are not of that school and are highly respectable. I guess what I'm saying is that red-brickess are treated as though the city owes them a favour. Problem is, only a fraction of them are worth hiring (as with any distribution).I'm not moaning (Big Boi), I'm simply putting across some fact.

I have to agree with wonder. I found it extremely difficult to break into MC (also did a stint in IB). Now three years in employers are taking much more notice, however the employer is still asking where my degrees and Phd came from. There are posts, presumably from red-brickers saying just buckle down and stop complaining - well here's the inside, I've done that and got the job and now have enough experience to not make my university a sticking point. I've been in the hiring chair and know SOME, but not all of the reasons. Much of it is, as was posted, so they can tell the client we only employ re-brickers, on the part if old timers it's snobbery and an inability to change. Unfortunatly some of it is done with experience, because of Blair's insistance that every (sic) education establishment can offer degrees they have been devalued a 1st here is not a 1st there. It is first and foremost the Gov's fault. BUT, from October (I think) next year - it will be illegal to ask for the university you attended so that will help some, of course it will just up the old boy network - but thats anothe story. For advice I'd say stick to the firms that have started to move their hiring inline with new policy. Accenture don't care about the uni as they test during the interview (working for accenture is again anotehr story), BarCap test during the interview and don't care about uni (although they ask). It's there and despite what people say, and I've seen it from both sides IT IS EASIER - due to prejudice, to get a job if you've come from a red-brick. The true intelligebt people accept this even if they know it's happeing - those who tell you to stop moaning are those who feel threatened and refuse to accept that it MAY (no got them but MAY) have helped them get a job - hang in there and play the game.

Nice point. But let's face it. There are great universities and there are not so great universities. This is reflected in the student selection.Why is everybody so afraid of having an elite?Nothing wrong with it.

Think you need to hold up there son with some of your comments. I went to UCL and believe me without sounding arrogant I dont feel threatened by anyone. Woner mentioned he/she was stating fact, infact you were not! You were merely stating some info you had and in your experience. If you want fact, go look at the majority of CEO's or people in high positions, the majority are from redbrick uni's. Now and I choose my words carefully here, im not saying that those from non redbrick uni's dont have the skills, knowledge or whatever else but history proves to most recruiters that graduants from redbrick uni's can do the job on the whole. Therefore, for them that is all that matters. Granted this may be slightly biased but thats life. Im not saying its correct and im not telling people to stop moaning, what I am saying is that your alternative is to knuckle down hard, unless ive missed something. On the whole a redbrick graduant from the top 7 universities is likely to be smarter than that from a non redbrick uni, notwithstanding this they are likely to have demonstrated the qualities top firms seek from a young age so that it becomes instilled it becomes instilled in their human fabric. Moreover, they are taught at excellent institutions, with leading figues visiting and with access to the most upto info/thoughts/etc. bottom line is for HR its a safeR bet!

True, the majority of CEOs or people in high positions come from certain schools and have certain backgrounds, also are white and male. But how can you say that a graduate from the top seven universities is likely to be smarter than that from a non redbrick uni? Because, on average, they get a better paid job? Or because some of them are perceived to spend more time on books? It is like to say that someone who works in a large corporate is smarter than someone who works in a small company, or someone from the south of England is smarter than someone from Leeds. Nature is much fairer than society, thanks god! If you measure intelligence this way George Bush is the smartest person on Earth! If you are saying that certain people with certain backgrounds, on average, get it easier in the corporate world, it’s true, and that recruiters like to hire certain types of people that look like them, might also be true, but that they are smarter, sexier or funnier, that’s your opinion.

You makie a credible point although your large-small corporation is not quite in line. Perhaps what I should have said was that in the only real available measure to people, the standard required to get into a top6/7 uni is much higher than that of a non redbrick. Therefore one could propose that a fair % of people who go to these unis may be smarter or at the very least exemplify credible traits above those that go to non redbricks. We could continue arguing until Man U and Arsenal begin to look like challening Chelsea for the title but the fact remains that the situation is how it is. How else do people suppose recruiters narrow down the pool of graduates. One could argue that this argument could be extended to people from abroad (who have permits) applying to firms in the UK graduating from schools recruiters have not heard of. The bottom line is that recruiters dont have the time to sift through thousands of applications. Yes some very very bright people will slip through the net but overall i think recruiters get people who can do the job competently. Similar to the recruitment process, if you dont perform on the day you wont get the job even if you are the best person for it....is that fair...possibly not but hey thats life...

Everyone seems to be agreeing that the individual fulfils the role and not their academia. I went to a (relatively) poor uni, however it was one of six in the UK at the time that was offering the course (BEng in Auto design) and it also had the best industry sponsored links. But selecting and appointing people selected on the basis of their uni background is a socially acceptable way of discriminating people. Now, this is not meant in a bad way and in truth probably only applies to graduates - but at this point there is no other reasonable way of taking two candidates and selecting one - think of it like having an Aiwa and Sony hi-fi available at the same price; which would you pick.

Totally agree. Its not right, but its just the way it is...

The statments I madein my post are fact - derived from experience, where else would the facts come from in an emphrical system. FYI my degree(s) come from QMW and JMU - my Phd comes from cambridge. although that was later in life - I have seen both sides of the coin. I generalised to give some encouragement to someone who sounded like they needed it so it didn't apply to every one. So... I have direct experience of red-brickers feeling very threatened when their top 5 uni did not secure them an automatic interview - they had to do the test like everyone else. some passed, some failed, as for new uni students some passed, some failed, did more red-brrickers pass? yes they did - no one has a problem with that - the problem lies with those who automatically look at the uni and assume. The research in some new uni's is top of the table - JMU for example topped the tables in astrophysics and sports science whilst I was there. Several people at top 5 uni's that I know had their PhD vivas with examiners from new unis. we agree that recruitment consultants have too little time to look at most CVs but it doesn't make it right. I am 100% behind my statement that its the gov to blame, I knew many extremely bright people who were the first in their family to go to uni (hell even do A'levels) and as such had no idea of the snobbery involved, they coud have gone to red-bricks but the uni didn't perform on the day so they went else where - proably runied their lives. Degrees have become devalued becuase of Blair's stupidity - he and he alone is at fault. Every uni should now be tested on a subject by subject basis; those that reach the grade should be able to issue degrees - the tests should happen on a rolling cycle and be done by those who cannot benefit from the decision. i know of at least 3 red-bricks that have diabolical maths degrees and the exams (I have seen the papers) -yet they are considered good degrees - but there are similar new-unis. People who went to red-bricks haven't necessarily shown the right stiff from an young age (thats funny); some may have - but only as many as those in new unis - if you blast my comments - be specific about your own. All it shows is that they went to such a uni - nothing more - only their past exams marks show what you claim and all they show is an ability to take exams.

While much of what you say is correct alot is just as highly speculative, for example 'People who went to red-bricks haven't necessarily shown the right stiff from an young age (thats funny); some may have - but only as many as those in new unis'. Quite how you came to that conclusion is baffling. Yes past exam marks show they can take exams but what other criteria would you attempt to otherwise use and would you be able to apply it fairly and uniformly? Moreover, I think your far too quick to point the finger at Blair, even if he was to change the system he would only possibly be solving the system. Whats to say that discrimination by recruiters would stop? Ask any recruiter whether they would choose a new uni student with a 1st over a cambridge, oxford, imperial, LSE graduate with a 1st and the answer on the whole would be a big no. I know id certainly wouldnt and not because they attended a new uni but because having been to uni and a top 6 one at that, I know what is demanded to get a 1st for example and its not merely prudent regurgitation nor spending hours reading, but much more. I dont know what is demanded to secure a 1st at a new uni and probably neither do most recruiters which is maybe (albeit unfairly) the case why they side with the 'tried and tested'. Dont get me wrong im not saying its fair but if we start arguing about new unis vis-a-vis redbricks, then we will start arguing over the difficulty of courses etc. Also many recruiters do not soley look at universities but also 'other' attributes. This gives new uni students also a chance to shine and demonstrate that their university choice should not be a noose round their necks and allow them the opportunity to exemplify their qualities. Mind you there are also students with 1st from good unis that dont get a look in when it comes to securing jobs, I know plenty, so i guess that is fact!

I'm glad I posed this question because the discussion is interesting in the least. It is interesting to see personal biases play out in the responses (as well as some unexplainable skewed comments).Fact: Discriminating by university is a real reality and it happens across the board.Fact: I have not met one red-brickee that stands out from the crowd, AT ALL !!! (AND THAT'S SAYING SOMETHING). For every level of red-brickee, there are many other non-red-brickees with better "life" experience (generally) emanating from the understanding that opportunities may not be as favouring and having to work that bit harder to make up for the fact that they are not red-brickees. WHAT IS THE OUTCOME: An astounding CV that incorporates part time jobs and EARNING YOUR WAY. My latter point is most reflected in the levels of self esteem and self confidence displayed by red-brickees and non red-brickees. If you tacitly survey this in your organisation, I think you may find that those non-red-brickees that have made it that far (without the institutional leg-ups) have far more self belief and esteem going for them. They may feel as though nothing can impede their progress because that is how they're programmed to work. Red-brickees, on the other hand (generally speaking) expect to utter their university name and doors swing open. WHAT HAPPENS ONCE THE DOOR IS OPEN IS A FREE FOR ALL. ANYONE CAN DO THE JOB GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.FACT: Given the obvious bias in favour of red-brickees, there may well be a market move towards positive discrimination (especially in city jobs like investment banking) against outright hiring of red-brickees where the "profile" doesn't matter as much. Some organisations in the city want good students from London universities who have ties in the city. THIS IS PROMISING.FACT: A business shall be distinguished by the product of its work. We can argue all day about the profile that red-brickees give to clients (who have casually placed an incorrect direct correlation between red-brick and the candidate required for a department). But the bottom line is, non red-brickees will work twice as hard, increasing productivity, earning respect, changing the tolerance (not the attitutes, which seldom change).I'm not demeaning red-brickees, some are very impressive. My point is that they are no more impressive than others. This gives rise to more questions because the comparison is academic. Further research (excluding obvious leg-ups) will reveal the non-red-brickee holding down one, two, or three part time jobs whilst still managing to be just as academically impressive if not more.Does business want more profits or do they want more profile? Because profile can only take you so far. This is a rhetorical questions in case the likes of Big Boi latch on to this and take off on a tangent :-)