Proposals from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) suggest that teens born earlier in the school year should have to meet a higher pass mark in school exams.

Would the logical extension be that those of slightly more advanced months than their peers should also have to satisfy higher criteria in applying for jobs as well?

The IFS data shows that those born in August, the last month of the academic year and thus the youngest in their classes, achieve substantially lower marks throughout schooling than those born in September, the first month of the academic year.

While the difference in those reaching ‘at least the expected level’ reduces from 26% aged seven to 6.4% aged 16, those born in the first two months of the academic year are 25% more likely to go to Oxbridge then August babies.

Without equalising marks, the qualifications of summer-born young people and graduates may then be worth more than those who celebrate their birthdays in the autumn. So until such measures ensuring fairness are in place, does recruitment criteria need to be adjusted?

In a word, no. Those born in September are no more or less likely to be in work, earn more or be any healthier or happier than those born in August, the IFS notes. Recruiter would congratulate its readers then, as we can only imagine this is due to fair and correct recruitment procedures already being the norm…