Lazy is not a word you normally associate with the UK's leading businesses. But when it comes to recruiting the next generation of talent this word is regrettably apt. For, despite growing evidence suggesting that employers' preoccupation with a 2:1 degree/300-plus UCAS points entry requirement to their graduate programmes only serves to reinforce a myopic interpretation of where 'skills' lie, there is little sign they have the inclination to stop their long love affair with this approach.
More dangerously, new research analysed for HR magazine using the Recruiters' Guide to Courses and Campuses (RGCC), based on official data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, finds reliance on this criteria is not only narrow-minded but actually undermines companies' attempts to create the diverse organisations they preach about.
According to the data, a 2:1 from one campus bears very little relation to a 2:1 from another. And a 2:1 in one subject may be far more easily acquired than a 2:1 in a different subject. The RGCC research, which has been conducted for the past six years, also finds Alevel grade inflation each year and more campuses awarding 2:1s.
Deeper analysis finds more sinister consequences of the reliance on 2:1 and 300 UCAS points. Take UCAS points: in the 2008/2009 academic year 40% of all entrants to university scored 360 UCAS points or more (the equivalent of three A grades or better at A level). Some 12% scored 480 points or more (four A grades or better) but 59% scored 300- plus. Students from socio-economic groups I/II make up 55% of all entrants to university. But employers favour the wealthier, with 61% of students with 300 UCAS points or more from groups I/II.
When it comes to ethnicity, black males are the least qualified entrants to university. White students comprise 81% of all students but in the preferred 300-plus UCAS points category 85% are white. Four in 10 of all white entrants have 360-plus points. Overall they get better A levels than non-white students.
Turning to the average UCAS points required to get into the so-called High Flier universities, the pre-1992 institutions that existed before the old polytechnics became universities, there is even more cause for concern. These are the universities where many top employers concentrate their recruitment efforts. The 40 High Flier universities with the highest averages come in with a total average of 324 UCAS points, well above the average A-level grades of non-white students.
There is some good news when it comes to diversity in universities. The number of non-white students has nearly doubled over the past five years. Yet white students outperform those from ethnic minorities, even in campuses where ethnic minorities are in the majority. High Fliers campuses are more middle class and have more privately educated candidates. White graduates make up 82% of all graduates but 86% of those gaining a 2:1.
Simon Howard, chairman of Work Group and co-founder of RGCC, believes this data provides conclusive evidence why the approach employers take in graduate recruitment is flawed.
"Take UCAS points - how do you get the best when so many students achieve the maximum grades?" he asks. "It also depends on the subject choice: it is easier, for example, to get good grades in maths, economics and languages. Plus, parental wealth is one of the biggest indicators of success, probably due to private tutoring. If the idea of an A level as a predictor of academic performance barely scrapes through, how can it be a good predicator of job performance? If you are using tariff points for your graduate schemes you are reinforcing every stereotype."
So why are so many employers unwittingly dismissing diversity by continuing to specify the now ubiquitous upper second degree, 300-plus UCAS points entry requirement to their graduate programmes? Doing so could mean they are failing to draw from the best talent available; failing to build innovative, challenging and creative teams; failing to appeal to wider customer bases and therefore potentially failing to gain a competitive edge and increase profits.
It's a question many graduates have no doubt wrestled with this summer as they joined the scores of fresh-faced intake of 1997 vying for the few graduate jobs in the market. According to the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR), there are now 69 applications for every graduate job - up from 49 last year. Moreover, a whole new tranche of undergraduates are about to nervously embark on their final year.
What will they do if they 'only' get a 2:2? And what about those planning to enter university in the next few years with the prospect of higher fees and the consequent higher debt hanging over them - and that's before the possible introduction of Vince Cable's graduate tax? The pressure to get that 2:1 will be even higher.
Ask employers and they will trot out the same old argument: they need some way of sifting the avalanche of applications they receive. A recent AGR survey finds graduate recruiters have received 686,660 applicants since the beginning of the 2010 recruitment season. They have responded by retreating to the safety of the minimum 2:1 criterion. Now 78% of employers surveyed by AGR insist on this compared to 67% in 2008.
However, even AGR chief Carl Gilleard believes employers need to move away from such a simplistic approach. "While it does aid the sifting process it can rule out promising candidates with the right work skills unnecessarily. We are encouraging our members to look beyond the degree classification when narrowing down the field of candidates to manageable promotions," he says. Howard goes a step further. "It is lazy beyond extreme," he says. "If you need to find a way of cutting the numbers then you need to look at a different solution. This is process-based, not talent-based."
According to the research, there appear to be some overlooked factors that determine whether a non-white student will achieve a 2:1 and attend a High Flier institution. Ethnic minorities are more likely to study vocational subjects, in which 2:1s are less likely to be awarded, while white, middle class lean towards arts subjects, in which more 2:1s are awarded. And of the top 40 universities with the most non-white entrants, 14 are post-1992 universities - those not favoured by major employers. Half of the universities with the most students living at home are post-1992 universities: for example 85% of students at Wolverhampton University and 67% at Middlesex University live with parents/at home. But female Asian students are more likely to live at home, regardless of their A-level grades. Nearly a quarter of Asian females with 3 A grades live at home. So it's not a case of High Flier universities missing female Asian students because they are not performing well at school. It's because they want to study at a university close to home.
Look at the top institutions welcoming disabled students and the first High Flier, Reading University, appears in 11th place, with 14% disabled intake (against an average of 6%). Sussex and Loughborough are the only others to feature in the top 20.
Interestingly, socio-economic class appears to wane in influence once university is reached. While there is no research as to why this is, it is possible that children from wealthier families are coached more heavily through A levels and may perform more to their natural ability when left to their own devices, while those from less wealthy backgrounds may have been more self-reliant through A levels. Or possibly those who did not do so well at school attended a less competitive university.
The 2:1, 300 plus UCAS points criterion also affects gender diversity but in this case it is men that lose out. Of those students gaining 300 plus UCAS points 57% are female. Meanwhile, women make up 59% of those gaining a 2:1 and 54% of those attaining a 1st. However, these figures need to be seen against the courses chosen by women. For example, the top five courses awarding 2:1 plus are languages and cultural studies (77%), history and philosophy (77%), English (75%), psychology (72%) and medical sciences (70%).
In all of these females make up the majority of students, ranging from 82% for psychology to 52% for history and philosophy.
There are other reasons adopting a 2:1, 300-plus UCAS criteria just doesn't make sense - it is no use for those recruiting in science, technology, engineering and maths. A 2:1 degree criteria handicaps employers looking for students with numeracy degrees as more 2:1s are awarded in arts subjects.
What about diversity here? In January 2010 the Higher Education Statistics Authority said 41% of graduates achieved their qualification in a science discipline. Of these, 50% were women. How the STEM-based companies cheered, for attracting more women into their workforces has long been a focus.
But, closer analysis shows that the definition of science included disciplines ranging from nursing, medicine and dentistry to veterinary science and architecture - not the type of science discipline STEM companies are after. Take these out of the equation and the split is 60% men/40% women.
Further investigation shows that a third of the science talent pool comprises biological sciences. This includes psychology, which we have already seen is female-dominated, and sports science. Again these are not STEM subjects. Take these out and the result is that these employers can pick from just 19% of all graduates, of which 31% are female. If you drill down even further, say if you want to recruit more females to engineering, the pool becomes a puddle. Only 5.5% of all graduates are in engineering and just 13% of those are female. And this is before the 2:1, 300-plus UCAS point criterion is added.
All this shows employers need to find new ways of approaching graduate recruitment. But as Shane Crabb, consultant at A&DC and a graduate four years ago, says: "The problem is companies have used this approach for years so why change now? There is also a lack of understanding of what else can be done. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that how you perform in a role is based on the degree or number of UCAS points you get."
"The way we judge firsts, upper seconds etc is history," adds Mike Hill, chief executive of graduate career service Graduate Prospects. "This system was devised in the 19th century for a different world and different group. It is not fit for purpose in the 21st century."
Using a 2:1, 300-plus UCAS points system may help cut down numbers, although even this is questionable as the majority of students emerge out of the huge teaching factories that are today's universities with a 2:1. But a 2:1 bar means employers are discriminating by degree, by gender and by ethnicity. Add 300-plus UCAS points and the picture is exaggerated. Employers are by default favouring white, middle-class and probably female students. It's time to do something about this.