> I am not sure if you quoted this wrong, but it would suggest that a more diverse workforce is cheaper if the bottom line is what was improved. Not quoting it

> I am not sure if you quoted this wrong, but it would suggest that a more diverse workforce is cheaper if the bottom line is what was improved. Not quoting it wrong - it doesn't suggest that inherently, bottom line comes after top line, and thus it makes no judgement on whether it was increased by reducing costs or increasing sales. I meant the latter, but my statement didn't exclude it. > pro meritocracy In an ideal world, that's the ideal state. We just need to get there, that's the issue here. > Maybe, but I have seen the impact first hand in many cases. You've made an impassioned argument about positive action as a concept there, and I actually work in a marketing space around inequality from a parental income perspective so 100% appreciate the points you raise. I also went to a poor school where my teachers didn't have batteries for the clocks, and could only photocopy the exam marking scheme on one side, meaning the greatest expectation they had for us was a C grade. I do, however, think we're talking at cross-purposes, and the issues you've raised with the education system (I believe) are different from the points I've been working through about recruitment choices in later employment. Fairness is different in education (I agree with you that any kind of artificial limit on access to a decent education is a shitshow we should be ashamed of), where quality should be consistent and equitable, versus what it is when making a qualitative decision on a hire. It's not about fairness in the latter situation at all, but identifying greater potential in candidates - whether that's through raw grades or taking into account the context those grades were achieved in (which, is more often than not based on the education they achieved, but not always) I know, based on the POLAR[0] information about my school, I've been looked at through a Widening Participation/positive action lens. I wouldn't begrudge someone from another underrepresented group to be given that treatment based on another characteristic of theirs. For example, if there's a lack of men teaching primary/kindergarten in an area, then I'd be ok seeing them to be selected over a female equivalent of similar qualified status as the environment for a male primary teacher is societally harsher. > I think if you look closer subcultures hold groups of people back every day. And again, the fix is education early and often. True - but if we wind it all the way to my argument up the thread about role models and success, the educational fix also comes from breaking those subcultures through example. [0] the UK's access to higher education ranking for UK areas