Is 14 so significant to me now?

I've seen an emerging trend of requesting information on the socioeconomic background of job applicants, along with other demographic data. The objective appears to be to consider these "life experience" circumstances as a means of creating a more diverse workforce. A laudable objective but one which, I suggest, is not being served by the question. I offer my own circumstances as an example of how creating such a "point in time" categorisation misses the objective.

The question I have seen generally asks for the employment circumstances of the main income earning member of the household when the applicant was a certain age, in the most recent example, when I was 14 years old. In my case, this was my dad who was an optician, specialising in contact lens dispensing in the North West of England. For wider context, I was at an all boys state Grammar school, learning to play the 'cello in addition to my other studies and we lived in a pleasant semi-detached house in a quiet cul-de-sac in small town Lancashire. In many ways this "point in time" life would, rightly, suggest that I was in a very comfortable position. That, however, is only part of the story.

By the time I was 12 I had experienced

• having our home repossessed following visits from bailiffs for unpaid bills as a business failed
• living in a 5th floor flat of a 20 storey block in a 7 block social housing complex
• my parents getting divorced
• having free school meals due to low household income
• waking up with ice on the inside of the bedroom windows in the winter
• domestic violence towards my mother and myself from a subsequent partner
• having to move away from my mother and siblings to live with my dad as a result of that abuse
• bullying at school because I came from a different part of the country and was overweight

I have been very fortunate. Statistically, I may be considered an anomaly. That list of experiences could well have led to behavioural issues, poor choices as regards peer associations, the possibility of being drawn into crime and other negative outcomes, none of which happened.

Do we want to give opportunities to people from disadvantaged backgrounds? Of course. Do we want to promote social mobility and inclusion? Definitely. Is that well served by asking a "point in time" question about someone's teenage circumstances? I have to say that I have my doubts.

My experiences before 14 were not good and even though life was materially comfortable at that time, with the bullying at school, missing my siblings and the second marriage tensions in the house, it was not in other ways. What about those whose circumstances change radically for the worse after that age and their anticipated prospects were greatly reduced? What about those who were from backgrounds worse than mine but who had been adopted into a home in the top 10% of income nationally at that age, but who still have the emotional and psychological impacts of their early years with them?

In the laudable attempt to improve the prospects of disadvantaged job applicants, there is a danger of creating an unintended bias by asking the "point in time" question, as well as the prospect of missing some of the very applicants the question is intended to serve. As with all things, nuance gets hidden behind tick-box forms and our understanding has to be based on more than a single answer to a blanket question.

When setting up online forms to attract suitable candidates and providing useful insights to their background, adding just a few more around having lived in social housing, about the family structure during formative years and the receipt of free school meals or other means tested benefits would be better, should candidates want to answer them of course.

Perhaps also considering that adding a bias in favour of one group during a recruitment process automatically creates a bias against people not in that group. Our desire to raise people up is worthy. The means we use to seek that goal need to be equally worthy.