AGENDA FOR TODAYWelcome – Simon Rogers

The economic forecast – Bryan Finn, Business Economics LtdA comprehensive analysis of the macro economic factors currently affecting graduate

recruitment and summary of predictions for 2013.Changing graduate recruitment algorithms? – Jane Clark, Barclays’

Head of Corporate and Investment Banking Campus Recruitment, Europe and Asia & Iain Heath, Head of Graduate Programmes, Centrica

AGR monitors its members’ selection criteria and has noticed an upwards trend with the degree class sought. Will the HEAR provide employers with better data on graduate achievements?

The old markers are the best – Prof. Adrian Furnham, writer, psychologist & consultant on organisational behaviour

‘Bright, resilient and conscientious’ are the best predictors of educational attainment and they also correlate with success at work.

Dump the 2:1 and UCAS points! – Simon Howard, Chairman, Work Group PLC

Using a 2:1 as a predictor of success is about as valid as picking Derby winners with a pin. Simon believes that “if it’s more white middle class recruits that you’re after,

then probably best stick with it”.

Enter one of the nine student judged awards

Closing deadline: 31 January 2013

To buy tickets or a table go to www.targetjobsawards.co.uk or call 020 7061 1927

And find out how you did on 3 April 2013 at London’s Grosvenor House

UK economy: GDP growth

Annual % change

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

UK economy: recruitment cycleAnnual % change

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6% GDP

Recruit

UK economy: GDP & recessions

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

GDP Index

1980s1990sCurrent

World economy: oil prices$ per barrel

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

UK economy: share pricesFTSE 100

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

6,000

6,500

7,000

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

UK economy: retail salesAnnual % change

UK economy: house pricesAnnual % change

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

UK economy: consumer confidenceBalance

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

UK economy: unemployment% of workforce

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

UK economy: job vacancies000s

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

UK economy: cost of labour

-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Info & Comms

Financial

Entertainment

Professional

Transport

Administration

Man

Public admin

Retail&Dist

Health & social Services

Hospitality

Education

Construction

UK economy: job vacancies by sectorAnnual % change Aug-Oct 2012

UK economy: new graduate unemployment

% of graduate workforce, 0-2 years

-2.0%

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

20122013

Future prospects: GDP forecasts

UK economy: new graduate unemployment

% of graduate workforce, 0-2 years

10

12

14

16

18

20

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pride and prejudice? The Centrica debate

•  In 2011, 64% of UK students gained a 1st or 2:1 (HESA)

•  In 2011, 4% of UK students gained less than a 2:2 (HESA)

•  1980: 3%, 4%, 13%

•  2010: 23%, 19%, 23% (The Guardian)

•  ‘The Centrica Graduate Programme 2012 – 4% need not apply’

Diversity - rarely uniform

•  2:2s – 15% of intakes from 2008-10

•  Outperformed by those with 2:1s and 1sts whilst on Graduate Programme

•  What a difference a Masters makes

•  Who are the people behind the stats?

•  32% of white students excluded•  49% of Asian students excluded•  62% of black students excluded (Darius Norell, Spring Project)

The value of the HEAR •  Provides a broader picture of candidates

achievements and full transcript of all module results, which enhances degree classification

•  Provides students with an accredited university record, both academic and extracurricular, during their time at university

•  Gives visibility to employers of students’ ability to demonstrate academic and non-academic skills learnt at university

•  Provides clear, reliable and verifiable information

•  Provides a basis for examples or questions in the interview and selection process

•  Allows a targeted focus on students’ on-going training and development

JensenEysenckCattell

Costa & McCraeEysenckCattell

Jung

Kolb

Hogan

LemerRotterRokeach

Individual Differences

Ability(Test of Power)

Personality(Test of Preferences)

“g”

Multiple intelligence

Traits

Types

Styles

Disorders

Belief & Value

Fluid

Crystallised

Abnormal

Normal

CognitiveLearning

Coping

Individual differences

Personality Intelligence

1 2“No man’s land”3

Squatters/hot intelligences

Behaviour (performance) 4

What next?5

Central questions•  Do personality traits predict educational outcome?•  If so, which and how much variance do they account for?•  Is the trait-performance link dependent on discipline?•  To what extent do intelligence test scores predict educational

outcome?•  Does crystallised intelligence predict better than fluid intelligence?•  What variance is accounted for?•  Together, how much variance typically does personality and

intelligence account for in predicting school examination grades?

Personality correlates of psychometric intelligence: the big five and ability test scores

n N E O A C

General intelligence (psychometric g)

-.15* .08* .33* .01 .02

Crystallised intelligence (gc)

-.09* .11* .30* .04 -.05

Cognitive speed -.04 .06* -.05 .04 .04

Visual perception -.04* .06* .24* .02 -.10

Mathematical/ numerical ability

-.17* .09* .01 -.05 -.15*

Note. *p < .05. N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness. Table and results from Ackerman and Heggestad’s (1997) meta analysis of 135 samples.

Personality correlates of school grades

•  N-- Anxiety inhibits performance at high levels

•  E- Extraverts distracted, bored by preparation

•  O+++ Intellectual curiosity and adventurous•  A Usually unrelated to grade•  C+++ Need for achievement, diligence

important for success

Intelligence and educational achievement

Ian J. Deary, Steve Strand, Pauline Smith, and Cres Fernandes.

Department of Psychology, University of EdinburghCentre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research, University of Warwick, UKNFER-Nelson, London, UK Intelligence, Vol 35(1) pp. 13-21

Abstract

This 5-year prospective longitudinal study of 70,000 + English children examined the association between psychometric intelligence at age 11 years and educational achievement in national examinations in 25 academic subjects at age 16.The correlation between a latent intelligence trait (Spearman's gfrom CAT2E) and a latent trait of educational achievement (GCSE scores) was 0.81.General intelligence contributed to success on all 25 subjects. Variance accounted for ranged from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% in English to 18.1% in Art and Design. Girls showed no advantage in g, but performed significantly better on all subjects except Physics. This was not due to their better verbal ability.

GCSE Subject Correlations: CAT g

Science

Mathematics 0.77

Double Science 0.68

Single Science 0.60

Physics 0.50

Chemistry 0.46

Biology 0.51

Social Science

Geography 0.65

History 0.63

Business 0.56

Information Technology 0.47

Information Technology Short Course

0.48

ResultsTable shows correlations between general cognitive ability and GCSE scores

GCSE Subject Correlations: CAT g

Overall Score

GCSE total Points 0.69

GCSE Best 8 0.72

Arts and Humanities

English 0.67

English Literature 0.59

Drama 0.47

Religious Education 0.52

French 0.64

German 0.61

Spanish 0.62

Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance

Melissa C. O’Connor *& Sampo V. PaunonenDepartment of Psychology, Social Science Centre, The University of Western Ontario,London, Ontario, Canada

Personality and Individual Differences Vol. 45 (5) pp. 971-990

A meta-analysis showed conscientiousness, in particular, to be most strongly and consistently associated with academic success. Openness to Experience was sometimes positively associated with scholastic achievement, whereas Extraversion was sometimes negatively related to the same criterion, although the empirical evidence regarding these latter two dimensions was somewhat mixed. Furthermore, personality predictors can account for variance in academic performance beyond that accounted for by measures of cognitive ability.

Abstract

Results

Conscientiousness and Eysenckian psychoticism as predictors of school grades: A one-year longitudinal study

Patrick C.L. Heaven *, Joseph Ciarrochi, & Wilma VialleDepartment of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, AustraliaPersonality and Individual Differences Vol. 42 (3) pp. 535-546

Using data from the Wollongong Youth Study, we assessed the extent to which psychoticism (P) and conscientiousness (C) (both Time 1) predict academic performance one year later.Participants were in their first year of high school at Time 1 (N = 784; 382 males and 394 females; 8 did not indicate their gender). The mean age was 12.30 yrs. (SD = 0.49). End of year grades were obtained for English, Science, Mathematics, Religious studies, Visual art, and Design. C, but not P, significantly predicted Total grade as well as outcomes in English, Religious studies, Visual art, and Design.The impact of P was more modest. Changes in P and C over time were also related to academic performance at Time 2.

Abstract

Results

Fluid intelligence, personality traits and scholastic success:Empirical evidence in a sample of Italian high school students

Annamaria Di Fabio & Lara BusoniDepartment of Psychology, University of Florence, ItalyPersonality and Individual Differences Vol 43(8) pp. 2095-2014

The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of intelligence and personality scholastic success and, particularly, verify the existence of incremental validity compared to cognitive ability.A sample of 286 students were administered Matrices and the Big Five Questionnaire.The results confirm the impact of intelligence and personality on scholastic success, underlining the role of personality traits. However, the principal predictor was found to be Conscientiousness, utilizing the end of the academic year GPA as an indicator of success, Intelligence, as an index of performance was indicated by the grade obtained on the State Exam.

Abstract

Results

Self-Assessed Intelligence andAcademic Performance

Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic* and Adrian Furnham**

*Goldsmiths, University of London, UK; **University College London, UKEducational Psychology Vol. 26(6) pp. 769-779

This paper reports the results of a two-year longitudinal study of the relationship between self-assessed intelligence (SAI) and academic performance (AP) in a sample of 184 British undergraduate students. Results showed significant correlations between SAI (both before and after taking an IQ test) and academic exam marks obtained two years later.Several continuous assessment indicators (notably attendance, oral expression, and motivation) were also significantly correlated with SAI, even when IQ scores were controlled.A series of hierarchical regressions indicated that although exam grades were best predicted by IQ, SAI showed significant incremental validity in the prediction of AP, accounting for an additional 3% of exam, 9% of continuous assessment, and 2% of essay grades.

Abstract

Results

Results

Correlations between personality scales and general and narrow ability factors

Females MalesPersonality g gCulture (O) .22 .10Tidiness (C) .02 .09Maturity (C) .24 .22Leadership (E) .12 .15Impulsiveness (E) .14 .02Vigor (E) .10 .14Sociability (E) -.05 .00Social Sensitivity (A) .18 .19Self-Confidence (ES) .16 .22Calmness (ES) .16 .23

Note: Due to extreme sample size, all correlations larger than .01 are statistically significant. Correlations are corrected for unreliability in the personality scales. (Reeve, Meyer & Bonacciio, 2005).

Pearson Correlations between WAIS-R and APM Scores and Personality Dimensions from the EPQ and the STI (Data from Stough, Nettelbeck et al.)

E N P LVerbal IQ -.30 -.20 -.03 -.29b

Performance IQ .08 -.12 -.02 -.01Full-scale IQ .00 .04 .00 -.20APM .04 .02 -.05 -.26a

Gf .08 .08 .07 -.18Gc -.10 -.19 -.08 -.13a p < .05bp < .01

Bandwith-Fidelity Beta values for multiple regression coefficients of Big 5 personality factors on fluid intelligence

gf

β t

Neuroticism -.07 -3.32*

Extraversion -.09 -3.68*

Openness .12 5.51*

Agreeableness .00 .14

Conscientiousness -.13 -5.81*

Regression Model F(5,2625) = 15.40*

Adjusted R2 .03Moutafi, Furnham & Crump, 2005

Worry

Low self-efficacy State/test anxiety

Trait anxiety

Low competenceLow preparation (in future tests)

Low performance

A hypothetical model for the processes underlying the relation between anxiety and test performance (based on Muller, 1992).

Model of the relationship between neuroticism and academic success (Dobson, 2000)

Threat associated with testing

situation

Trait anxiety

State anxiety

Interference in cognitive

processing

Lowered test performance

Two models representing neuroticism being directly related to intelligence and the relationship between neuroticism and intelligence being mediated by test anxiety affecting IQ test performance

Model 1 Model 2

Neuroticism

IQ

Neuroticism (trait anxiety

Test anxiety (state anxiety) IQ test

performance

Correlations between neuroticism, fluid intelligence, test anxiety and induced anxiety

Neuroticism Intelligence Test anxiety

Intelligence -.19*

Test anxiety .34*** -.22*

Induced anxiety .48*** -.11 .32**

*p <.05, **p <.01, ***p < .001

The relationship between neuroticism, test anxiety and intelligence (test performance).

Neuroticism

Test anxiety Intelligence (test performance)

Moutafi et al, 2005

Correlations between conscientiousness and intelligence measures

Measure of IQ r p N1 Graduate Managerial Assessment (Abstract) -.11 <.01 900

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal g -.13 <.001 900

g -.14 <.001 9002 Graduate Managerial Assessment (Abstract) -.11 <.001 2658

3 General Reasoning Test Battery 1 – Numerical Reasoning

-.12 <.05 201

GRTB 2 – Verbal Reasoning -.23 <.001 201GRTB 2 – Abstract Reasoning -.26 <.001 201

4 Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices -.02 <.05 1825 Baddeley Reasoning Test -.21 <.05 1006 General Reasoning Test Battery 2 – Numerical

Reasoning-.20 <.001 4625

GRTB 2 – Verbal Reasoning -.26 <.001 4625

GRTB 2 – Abstract Reasoning -.16 <.001 4625

g -.25 <.001 4625

Test related features to high and low extraversion

Extraversion level High LowDivided attention + - Long-term memory - +Reflective problem solving - +Resistance to distraction + -Retrieval from memory + -Short term memory + -Vigilance - +

Note: Table is adapted from Matthews (1999)

Study 1

• Participants: 80 British schoolchildren• Measures:

– GCSE results in various subjects (10th grade)

– NEO-FFI– Wonderlic personnel test

MATHS SCIENCE ENGLISH LIT ENGLISH LANG RELIGION LANGUAGE TOTAL

WPT 0.46** (0.50) 0.34** (0.33) 0.22 (0.24) 0.22 (0.30) 0.17 (0.15) 0.14 (0.15) 0.34** (0.37)

N - 0.26* (0.17) - 0.07 (0.06) - 0.11 (- 0.12) - 0.20 (-0.08) - 0.17 (-0.19) -0.09 (-0.09) -0.26* (0.17)

E 0.05 (0.11) 0.05 (0.04) 0.03 (0.03) 0.09 (0.08) 0.02 (0.08) 0.02 (0.02) 0.05 (0.04)

O 0.16 (0.15) 0.23* (0.23) 0.31** (0.31) 0.36** (0.36) 0.31* (0.15) 0.08 (0.08) 0.28* (0.28)

A 0.07 (0.00) 0.08 (0.09) 0.08 (0.07) 0.12 (0.10) 0.04 (0.03) 0.05 (0.06) 0.06 (0.04)

C 0.17 (0.14) 0.29** (0.30) 0.18 (0.17) 0.21 (0.16) 0.22* (0.20) 0.27* (0.27) 0.31** (0.29)

Correlations between GCSE scores, cognitive ability scores and the big five personality measures. (Partial correlations shown in brackets partialling out sex and age.)

n = 79. *p<0.05, **p<0.01N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness to Experience, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, WPT = Wonderlic Personnel Test

Total GCSE M/S L/L

β t β t β t

Wonderlic 0.32 3.16* 0.45 4.46 0.23 2.09

F (1,78) 9.77* (1,78) 19.9** (1,78) 4.35*

Adj. R2 0.10 0.19 0.04

Neuroticism -0.16 -1.44 -0.12 1.12 -0.15 -1.30

Extraversion -0.05 -0.44 -0.03 0.29 -0.02 -0.16

Openness to Experience 0.20 1.92 0.03 0.28 0.13 1.03

Agreeableness -0.09 0.66 0.21 0.83 0.08 0.65

Conscientiousness 0.31 3.12* 0.16 1.34 0.26 2.05*

F (6,76) 3.58** (6,78) 4.14 (6.78) 2.77*

Adj. R2 0.23 0.19 0.12

β andt-values as predictors of AP after hierarchical regression. Regressions of total GCSE scores, individual GCSE scores and combined scores.

Typical intellectual engagement

• Personality• Approaches to learning• Typical Intellectual style• General and crystallised intelligence

Furnham, A., Monsen, J., & Ahmetoglu,G. (2009) Typical intellectual engagement, Big Five personality traits, approaches to learning and cognitive ability predictors of academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 769-782.

English (+Literature)

Maths (+ Science) Total (Maths+English) Total(All)

Std.B t Std.B t Std.B t Std.B t

Age .18 2.66** .13 2.06* .13 1.85 .11 1.62.

Gender .25 3.73 ** .35 5.47** .19 2.82** .12 -1.78

F (2, 212) = 13.02** (2, 212) = 20.16** (2, 212) = 7.02** (2, 212) = 3.62*

AdjR² .10 .15 .05 .02 WPT .37 5.57** .41 6.24** .35 4.25** .22 2.65**

GK .39 5.60** .31 4.43** .21 2.53* .34 3.81**

F (4, 212) = 61.23** (4, 212) = 63.26** (4, 212) = 22.79** (4, 212) = 18.7** AdjR² .53 .54 .29 .25TIE .07 1.27 .09 1.61 .21 3.15** .19 2.74**

F (5, 212) = 49.45** (5, 212) = 51.51** (5, 212) = 21.01** (5, 212) = 16.95**AdjR² .53 .55 .32 .27

N .06 1.00 .08 1.44 .08 1.39 .07 1.09

E .05 .97 .03 .66 .04 .61 .02 .32

O -.03 -.47 -.11 -1.92 -.12 -1.63 -.10 -1.34

A .04 .73 .05 1.11 .02 .29 .03 .43

C .07 1.60 .07 1.54 .07 1.21 .10 1.63

F (10, 212) = 25.28** (10, 212) = 27.44** (10, 212) = 11.19** (10, 212) = 9.17**AdjR² .54 .56 .33 .28 SPQS .07 1.22 .01 .17 .05 .76 .05 .66

SPQD -.09 -1.41 -.09 1.40 -.07 -.82 -.02 -.20

SPQA .15 2.01* .18 2.54* .19 2.20* .12 1.37

F (13, 212) = 20.54** (13, 212) = 22.20** (13, 212) = 9.43** (13, 212) = 7.41** AdjR² .55 .57 .34 .28

Individual differences in test taking•  Do personality traits affect intelligence test

performance?Self-efficacy, test anxiety, need for achievement, self-regulation, extraversion, need for cognition

•  Does intelligence affect personality test responses?•  Dissimulation•  Are there any “pure” measures of either personality or

intelligence?•  Can we avoid “noise” in measurement?

•  Social intelligences, specifically emotional intelligence*•  Self-assessed personality & intelligence (SAI)•  Typical intellectual engagement (TIE)•  Intellectual competence•  Cognitive, learning, thinking styles•  Self-confidence/core self-concept•  Creativity **Measure by both power and preference

Mixed, middle-ground, muddled, Mesopotamian constructs?

We know that:•  Intelligence and personality predict school success•  Intelligence is probably more important than personality•  The more salient personality variables are, in order,

openness, conscientiousness, neuroticism•  But the power of these factors depends on other things like

* The subject being taught* The teacher as his/her preferred method* The learning style of the student

A simple model

School Success

Learning Style SPQ

IntelligenceFluid/Crystallised

PersonalityO C N

The incremental validity question

Do typical intellectual learning styles and approaches addenoughexplicableusefulincremental validity in addition to personality and intelligence in predicting school success.

Topic Teacher Teaching Style

Assessment Methods

Academic Achievement

N E O A C

IQ

Preference for...Satisfaction With………Choice of

Does learning style have incremental validity?N = 1581.   Study process questionnaire2.   NEO-PI-R3.   Wonderlic personnel test4.   Baddeley reasoning test

Exam marks (totalled) 3 years later

Does personality and ability predict examination preference?

Learning approaches, personality and intelligence as predictors of exam marks

B Std.Error Standardised β t

Model 1SurfaceDeepAchieving

-.38 .63 .24

.21 .17 .15

-.19 .37 .17

1.87 3.64** 1.58

Adj.R2 = 17 F (3, 78) = 6.58**

Model 2NeuroticismExtraversionOpennessAgreeablenessConscientiousness

.04 .15 .30 -.10 .33

.14 .16 .11 .12 .08

.03 .12 .27 -.09 .40

.34 1.01 2.64** .88 4.04**

Adj.R2 = 35 F (8, 73) = 6.43**

Model 3 IQgf

.04 .18

.09 .06

.05 .28

.45 2.72**

Adj.R2 = 41 F (10, 71) = 6.63**

Note. N = 284. * p < .05, ** p < .01. IQ = Wonderlic Personnel Test. gf = fluid intelligence

Does typical intellectual engagement have incremental validity

N = 1041.   NEO-FFI2.   Typical intellectual engagement3.   Wonderlic personnel test 4.   Baddeley reasoning test5.   Raven’s advanced progressive matrices

FINAL PROJECT ESSAYS EXAMS St. β t St. β t St. β t 1 Psychometric g .10 .97 .15 1.49 .26 2.72**

Model F (1, 100) = .96Adj.R2 = .01R = .10

Model F (1, 100) = 2.22Adj.R2 = .01R = .15

Model F (1, 100) = 7.43**Adj.R2 = .06R = .26**

2 Psychometric g .07 .67 .12 1.19 .23 2.39**

Neuroticism -.14 1.24 -.16 1.44 -.12 -1.11

Extraversion -.03 .25 -.06 .54 -.01 .04

Openness -.19 1.84 -.06 .53 -.18 1.80

Agreeableness -.09 .81 .02 .19 -.03 .35

Conscientiousness .21 2.02* .19 1.74 .31 3.06**

Model F (6, 95) = 2.10Adj.R2 = .06R = .34*

Model F (6, 95) = 1.56Adj.R2 = .03R = .30

Model F (6, 95) = 3.98**Adj.R2 = .15R = .45**

3 Psychometric g .04 .38 .08 .77 .18 1.95*

Neuroticism -.11 1.03 -.13 1.17 -.08 .77

Extraversion -.01 .11 -.04 .32 .02 .23

Openness -.22 2.10* -.10 .94 -.22 2.36*

Agreeableness -.11 .99 -.01 .06 -.07 .69

Conscientiousness .15 1.43 .10 .91 .21 2.10*

TIE .20 1.92* .30 2.90** .34 3.54**

Model F (7, 94) = 2.39*Adj.R2 = .09R = .39*

Model F (7, 94) = 2.64**Adj.R2 = .10R = .41*

Model F (7, 94) = 5.62**Adj.R2 = .24R = .54**

Hierarchical multiple regressions: cognitive ability, personality and typical intellectual engagement as predictors of academic performance

Preferences for university assessment methods

N = 120 students

NEO – FFI

Wonderlic personnel test

MultipleChoice

Essay-typeexam

VivaOral Exam

Continuous assessment

Final project(dissertation)

IQ .23* -.03 -.22* .01 .02

N .04 (.01) -.21* (-.21*) -.24* (-.22*) -.10 (-.10) .09 (.09)

E -.06 (-.06) -.04 (-.04) .27** (.28**) .16 (.16) -.05 (-.05)

O -.02 (-.02) -.05 (-.05) .10 (.10) .01 (.01) -.02 (-.02)

A -.06 (-.06) .22* (.22) -.03 (-.03) .16 (.16) .05 (.05)

C -.06 -.01) .08 (.08) .16 (.11) .25** (.25**) .02 (.03)

Gender -.21* (-.15) .01 (.03) -.07 (-.12) .11 (.13) .13 (.21*)

Correlations between PAMI factors, IQ, big five personality traits and gender

Essay-type Exam Vivast.β t st.β t

WEM -.06 .51 -.03 .26SB .16 1.42 .05 .42Adj.R2 .03 .01IQ -.10 .97 .08 .77N -.28 2.28* -.23 1.94*E -.06 .47 .17 1.30O .10 .92 -.12 1.12A -.19 1.79* -.15 1.44C .01 .13 .14 1.22Adj.R2 .07 .10Gender -.07 .59 -1.06 1.82F(1,101) 1.68 2.00*Adj.R2 .06 .09

Hierarchical regressions, academic perform. IQ, personality, gender.

n = 93. WEM=Written exam marks, SB=Seminar Behaviour, IQ=Wonderlic. High on PAMI factors, e.g. Multiple Choice, Viva, refer to preference, whereas low scores refer to dislike. Gender codes 1 = males, 2 = females, * p <.05

Continuous Assessment Final Proj. Dissertationst.β t st.β t

WEM -.10 .83 -.05 .23SB -.00 .03 .10 .94Adj.R2 .02 .02IQ .10 .95 .06 .66N .09 .70 .08 .67E .10 .75 -.17 1.39O -.22 1.96* -.14 1.40A -.15 1.43 .01 .13C .24 2.13* .36 3.36**Adj.R2 .04 .19Gender .18 1.50 -.10 .89F(1,101) 1.58 3.45**Adj.R2 .05 .19

n = 93. WEM=Written exam marks, SB=Seminar Behaviour, IQ=Wonderlic. High on PAMI factors, e.g. Multiple Choice, Viva, refer to preference, whereas low scores refer to dislike. Gender codes 1 = males, 2 = females, * p <.05

Hierarchical regressions, academic perform. IQ, personality, gender.

Conclusion

Personality and intelligence and… predict:•  Exam marks•  Project marks•  Term essay• General Knowledge• How students like to be assessed• How students like to be taught

A write of passage

My graduate recruits are really fantastic

------------------------------------------------------

Nobody does that any more…

“Candidates are asked to complete and return a handwritten application form to us (unless you have a relevant medical condition) by no later than 31st October 2012”

Thicker than water

What it means?Type A

Best traits Earnest, creative, sensible, reserved, patient, responsible

Worst traits Fastidious, overearnest, stubborn, tense

Type B

Best traits Wild, active, doer, creative, passionate, strong

Worst traits Selfish, irresponsible, unforgiving, erratic

Type AB

Best traits Cool, controlled, rational, sociable, adaptable

Worst traits Critical, indecisive, forgetful, irresponsible, "split personality"

Type O

Best traits Confident, self-determined, optimistic, strong-willed

Worst traits Self-centered, cold, doubtful, unpredictable, "workaholic"

High achievers“…each inch increase in height results in a predicted increase in annual earnings of $897 in Study 1, $728 in Study 2 and $743 in study 4”

“Even in the case of objective outcomes, however, the validity of height was comparable to other bellwether predictors of job performance, such as the personality trait of conscientiousness”

The Effect of Physical Height on Workplace Success and IncomeJudge, T.A. and Cable, D.M

Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 428-441

The graduate bar

“What happens if I set a 2:1 bar?”

What does 2:1+ mean anyway?

The students who come top on each course.

But is it a good proxy for ability?

5 target groups of engineers…

88

62

87

140

71

240

300

360

420

480

540

600

CCC

BBB

AAA

AABB

AAAA

Average entry grades

What we might be doing…

Top

Tier 2:1+Top tier 2:2-

Mid tier 2:1+

Mid tier 2:2-

Bottom tier 2:1+

Bottom tier 2:2-

Subject Group % 2:1+ % you reject

History/Philosophy 77% 23%

Languages 77% 23%

English 76% 24%

Maths 66% 34%

Engineering 63% 37%

Law 60% 40%

Degrees of difference

Buy degrees

2:1+ 2:2-

Privately educated 73% 27%

State educated 65% 35%

Degree class2:1+ 2:2-

Socio-economic group I/II 71% 29%

Socio-economic group III/IV 66% 34%

Socio-economic group V/VI 62% 38%

Socio-economic group VII/VIII 59% 41%

Gender 2:1+

2:1+ 2:2-

Male 61% 39%

Female 67% 33%

Ethnicity 2:1+

2:1+ 2:2-

White students 69% 31%

Non-white students 53% 47%

Key conclusions

1.   It’s discriminatory. A 2:1 bar favours: – Candidates from privileged backgrounds– White candidates– Subjects you may not really prefer– Female candidates

2.   You are excluding some of the best candidates3.   There is no credible evidence showing it’s an effective

predictor of career success

Thanks for listening

Simon HowardChairman, Work Group plcSimon.howard@workcomms.com

BA Hons (2:2) Exeter6 feet 1 inchBlood Group A-