‘Blind CV’ Policy Adopted by leading Law Firm Clifford Chance,

It appears prima facie that magic circle Firm, Clifford Chance really is giving graduates a chance by adopting a ‘blind CV’ policy. When candidates are put through their paces during the gruelling interview process, the panel of recruiters are not given the candidates CV, therefore have no information in regards to the education they’ve received. - I.E. whether they attended a private school/state school or are Oxbridge graduates. A year into adopting the policy and the firm has seen its annual intake of 100 graduate trainees from 41 different institutions – a rise which is nearly 30 per cent on the number represented in the previous year under the old recruitment system. So perhaps, this is a great way of promoting diversity which encourages a more innovative style of providing legal services, and other law firms and professional bodies should follow suit? I’m on the fence (for a change) on this one. Yes, a blind CV policy is great if it breaks down obstacles- specifically looking on Oxbridge graduates more favourably. It may well be the case that, recruiters do not intentionally favour students from Russell group Universities but perhaps, subconsciously perceive those students to be far more competent than their counter-parts thereby, increasing the Russell group student’s chances of recruitment above that of others. A blind CV would solve this issue of preconceived ideas about the competency of a student based on their educational background and allow a greater number of students, from less selective universities to be chosen (as shown in the statistics mentioned above). If more law firms and businesses were to follow suit and adopt such a policy, then one could argue society would be better represented in the industry which drives our economy. As it would encourage graduates from less selective to apply to the more competitive firms, where they previously thought they would not stand a chance. Such a policy may well enhance democracy in Great Britain, as graduates from non-selective universities which are successful may accumulate the necessary skills and confidence to branch out into areas such as Politics. An area which one could argue does not resemble society with the Sutton trust reporting that almost a third of MPs attended either Oxford or Cambridge (This included 38 per cent of Conservative MPs and 20 per cent of Labour MPs). Moreover, with a diverse work force, businesses and legal firms by adopting the 'blind CV’ policy will be able to approach their system of work more pragmatically and dynamically. -Equipped with a team of employees that are able to merge their differences to create unique business models. Creating greater competition in business and in turn, aiding the economy. The guardian also reported that 45% of FTSE 100 chief executives and chairs were schooled privately in the UK, while 28% studied at Oxbridge. A far-sighted view would be that if a ‘blind policy’ were to be adopted by leading businesses there would be a dramatic change in these figures, say in a decade or so, with more FTSE 100 executives coming from state schools who generally go to less selective Universities. The arguments in favour of a ‘Blind CV’ seem to be pretty strong therefore, creating a fairer, less elitist and more reflective society. A ‘blind CV’ policy some may argue might prevent the best possible graduates from being recruited if the recruiter is unaware of where he/she has graduated from. After all, the recruitment interview can be a nerve wracking process and some graduates may find themselves under performing as a result. If the recruiter knows he/she has graduated from Oxbridge or Cambridge then perhaps they will take into account the graduates accomplishments and put the under-performance down to an overwhelming sense of nerves. A ‘blind CV’ would mean a graduate like this, would not be selected due to a slight hiccup. Moreover, graduates who have attended Russell Group Universities have done so on merit, would it not be unfair to detract from this achievement just so that graduates from less selective universities stand a chance? The question arises therefore of whether success, achievement and the ability to fulfil the roles requirements successfully are measured solely by the performance during the interview process? Or measured against the candidate as a whole including the university in which they attended and the grades in which they've attained?