One hot debate that keeps resurfacing in Thai society every now and then is how recruiters seem to favour Chulalongkorn graduates and graduates from other noted public universities over graduates from Rajabhat universities in the job market.
Some call this practice discrimination as all graduates should be treated individually and evaluated on equal ground for a position regardless of what institute they graduate from.
In an idealistic world, I agree that no one should be at an advantage or disadvantage based on a pre-conceived notion whether it's positive or negative. But, in the real world, is considering candidates from more well-known institutes first just a safer bet from an employer's POV?
It only makes sense that potential employers, who don't have anything more than a GPA and a list of self-proclaimed skills on a CV to evaluate someone by, would surely look into the reputation of educational institutes that their candidates graduated from as one of deciding factors.
Their uni name implies several things.
If Somchai managed to get a seat at a university that many people vied for, it meant he pushed himself above the average and didn't mind working extra in order to get higher scores. On the other hand, Sombat graduated from a private university with less prestige and with a similar GPA to Somchai. GPA, obviously, shows a person's willingness to study hard and perhaps their discipline to maintain a study schedule.
Also, personally, I think that when diligent students are gathered in one place with a competitive environment their A likely means more than another A from another place with average students in a less competitive environment.
Sure this doesn't mean that Somchai is automatically a better fit for the position that the company is looking to fill as other factors may come into play after a job interview. But who do you think the recruiter wants to ask to come in for the interview first?
In my experience, a uni name very matters when you're a fresh graduate looking for a job. It does help you get your foot in the door or a job interview. Down the line, however, it was much less mentioned as experience, past and proven skills, as well as personality, increasingly become bigger factors. I can sympathise that Rajabhat graduates may face additional hurdles trying to enter the job market but life isn't always fair. It's just that.
To ask companies to treat first-jobber candidates equally seems naive. Companies are for-profit organisations after all and they probably want the best use out of their time and resources. Of course, accepting someone into an organisation is always a gamble but why not go with the most promising option? You may get a qualified worker who stays for only six months. You may get an underqualified worker who can't pass probation. You may get a worker who sounds good on paper but performs badly in real life. In either case, you'll have to start the recruiting process all over again.
It's nothing personal, it's business.
