If the Guardian dislikes privately educated Oxbridge types, why does it hire so many?

The Guardian ran an article today about research by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission. The commission claims around 70 per cent of jobs at law, accountancy and financial firms go to applicants from private or selective schools. And the Guardian goes into full class war mode. Its article — which has the rather provocative headline ‘poshness tests’ block working-class applicants at top companies’ — reports on the findings of the study, which is in contrast plainly titled ‘Non-educational barriers to the elite professions evaluation’:

‘The research by the social mobility and child poverty commission found that old-fashioned snobbery about accents and mannerisms was being used by top companies to filter out working-class candidates and favour the privileged.’

Note how the Guardian is dead against these ‘top companies.’ To hire someone from a feepaying school, it seems, is to: ‘filter out working-class candidates and favour the privileged.’ But here’s another idea: might it just mean hiring the very best people for the job? Regardless of their background? Need it always be the case that the privately educated are only ever hired because they sneakily pass some ‘poshness test?’ If so, that test must be a part of every application to the Guardian.