From now on Macfarlanes partners will interview training contract candidates without having seen their CVs.

Under the CV-blind scheme, which is intended to improve social diversity within the firm, a panel of partners will interview applicants knowing only their names. Instead of questions about their sordid pasts, candidates will be assessed on a series of hypothetical scenarios, which presumably won't include "My favourite Oxbridge quad", "Rules of the Eton Wall Game" and "Yacht etiquette".

CVs will still be used by the graduate recruitment team to vet applicants before they're allowed in the building. But Macfarlanes believes the CV-blind approach, which it introduced for vac schemers earlier this year and which is already employed by Clifford Chance, will level the playing field for students from lower-ranked universities.

    Ann lets slip that she went to Leeds

Macfarlanes head of recruitment Sean Lavin told RollOnFriday that the firm decided to go CV-blind because the firm "didn't feel there was any need for partners to have access to a candidate's CV in the critical interview where a candidate's analytical skills and commercial awareness are assessed". He suggested that any discrimination by partners against candidates who had not progressed from Westminster to Cambridge would not have been conscious, but said that the CV-blind approach "simply helps to eliminate the possibility of bias for or against candidates from particular backgrounds".
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 18 July 14 11:59

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference! What about the initial bias at the HR or graduate recruitment team level who have strict mandates from said partners when it comes to selecting the candidates? I guess there isn't any quick fix to that problem, but most candidates will still be coming from the same backgrounds, so what impact will CV-blind interviews really have?

Anonymous 18 July 14 15:07

So instead of reading where someone went to school/uni and not asking the question, presumably the partners will now ask this which could just give the whole issue much more attention

Anonymous 18 July 14 15:39

Surely it would make more sense to remove race and gender (and names, which would tend to denote the same) from application forms, allocating each applicant a number. That way HR can't be biassed. A frightening study showed that identical CVs (actually identical as they were prepared for the study) returned far more offers when "male" rather than "female" name was stated on the CV.

Anonymous 18 July 14 17:11

Absolute waste of time & useful effort. First of all, UK law firms or chambers must realise that diversity doesn't really include "white-working class" or whatever you call it, per se, it's technically and simply only about ethnic minorities. This is why the U.S.A will always be at the forefront of diversity and equal opportunities. Europe will remain behind for a decade or so to come, unless the establishment or new generation realise the need to make a change.

Truth be told: would your average white partner or associate of a law firm prefer to go out for drinks or social event with a white trainee or Asian or African (hate using "black") trainee?

Why do we want to paint over the fact that we human beings prefer others who are identical or similar to us in appearance i.e. skin colour?
I read this on a firm's website: "..You need to get on with people; us and our clients.The question we will ask ourselves when interviewing anyone is this: "Would we have a drink with this person after work?" NB: this firm says that this is regardless of the fact that you're intelligent and/or capable of doing the job!



If firms/chambers truly want to be diverse, let's see a range of faces (Africa, Asia, European etc) on your firm's profile page.
Law firms doing this shouldn't bother, seriously. It looks ridiculous!

Spotting an African or Asian first name or surname isn't rocket science.

This initiative might work if all suitably qualified or able candidates (who are of Asian or African or other ethnic minority origin) have English first names & surnames. Lo and behold: the majority of them don't!

Anonymous 18 July 14 17:38

A more structured comment...

Absolute waste of time! Law firms doing this shouldn't bother, seriously. It looks ridiculous! Spotting an African or Asian first name or surname isn't rocket science.

If firms & chambers truly want to be diverse, let's see a range of faces (Africa, Asia, European etc) on your their profile pages.

This initiative might work if all suitably qualified or able candidates (who are of Asian or African or other ethnic minority origin) have English first names & surnames. Lo and behold: the majority of them don't!

Ranting more…..
Sad thing is that people don’t like to be told what to do or who to employ, even if it’s for the good of the society. They’d rather use every flimsy excuses to criticise good faith initiatives.

UK law firms or chambers must realise that “diversity” doesn't really include "white-working class" or whatever one may call it; it's simply about the recognition that we human beings prefer others who are identical or similar to us in appearance i.e. skin colour (innate and distinctive characteristic). Meaning: it’s all about race!

This is why the U.S.A will always be at the forefront of diversity and equal opportunities in many professions. I see that their influence and culture is rubbing off on UK law firms. Europe will remain behind for a decade or so to come, unless the establishment and the new generation realise the need to make a change. We must accept that there are societal gains and economic (including personal development) values to be had by embracing others and being keen to work with others who don’t look like us.

Truth be told: would your average white partner or associate of a law firm prefer to go out for drinks or social event with a white trainee or Asian or black (hate using "black", prefer African) trainee? Same can be said of Asian or African partner or associate, but to a lesser extent in my experience.

I read this on a firm's website: "..You need to get on with people; us and our clients. The question we will ask ourselves when interviewing anyone is this: "Would we have a drink with this person after work?" NB: this firm says that this test is regardless of the fact that you're intelligent and/or capable of doing the job! If your clients or colleagues prefer not (or hate, unless forced to) to work or hang out with people of a different race, that rules the candidate out, right?





Roll On Friday 18 July 14 17:48

@16.11 I don't even know where to start with your post so I'll just pick up on one point.

Why do you hate using the term 'black' but not 'white'? I agree that black people are generally more brown than black, but white people aren't exactly white either so if your problem is accuracy, then you should hate using both terms. Describing black people as African fails to acknowledge that 1) Not all black people are African and 2) Not all Africans are black.

Anonymous 18 July 14 20:45

I agree that this is PR/marketing. If you want a truly CV-blind process, why not remove it all together? I imagine the 'problems' with diversity occur during the initial stages, not the latter ones.

Anonymous 18 July 14 20:48

@withderision, you're right, that was lazy. But that was in the context of 'origin' (i.e. ancestral or when these "black", "brown", "white" looking people are lined up side-by-side with each other, which continent(s) would a reasonable person quickly/easily say they're from. (As some often ask: where are you, parents, grandparents originally from?

Anyway, let's not get into history or irrelevant points.

Please focus and argue against those point(s) then, if you wish to bother.

For those who wish to: name and appearance can be used to discriminate. Agree?

Anonymous 18 July 14 21:36

Gosh! Partners actually read the CV's that were sent to them before they meet the candidates..

Anonymous 22 July 14 17:25

So now the partners will blindly chose from which Russel Group University their new trainee is from. Such. A. Serious. Change