Why are we pushed towards graduate schemes for the biggest polluters in the world?

University grounds have always been historically a battleground within political history. Who could forget Oxford students condemning coloniser Cecil Rhodes’s statue? Recent campus demonstrations on Palestine? Or the political attacks on American academic institutions and critical race theory? The University of Manchester has no doubt seen its fair share of sit-ins, from strikes around lecturers' pay and rallying cries for environmental justice.

These dramatic scenes surely come from an academic battleground where young people use their voices and articulate their needs for social reform. I supported – and still do – these causes. I wholeheartedly embraced the revolutionary spirit. And I was not alone. Students from all over donned their anti-establishment placards and staged sit-ins for climate change, for political instability, for ceasefires.

So, when the Times Top 100 graduate employers release their annual reports, should we have been surprised to find British Petroleum, Exxonmobile, Blackrock, J.P. Morgan, and BAE Systems settled comfortably in the list? Year after year?

When I was an eager intern in the final summer of my undergraduate degree, I arrived at 9 am every day - but I was late rather than early most days, I must confess - clad in slacks, button-up shirts and slippery-soled brogues. With long days poring over an Excel sheet, I was profiting by learning more about the corporate lifestyle, pocketing my wages and filling up my CV.

It was not till a fateful day at the BDO offices in Manchester that I remember profits came with losses. I was to become an asset for companies that gained from global instability and inaction on climate matters.

Here was the problem: I could not afford to walk away from my summer job. When would another opportunity like this come? I realise now, I was facing a common phenomenon that students my age faced. There seemed to be fewer options for graduates to enter STEM careers and become another cog in the corporate engine.

Alicia, a recent postgraduate from the University of Manchester, studied an English Literature course. “I applied for a lot of graduate schemes, lots of media stuff, but nothing stuck. I remember being the final group of applicants at ITV, but I didn’t get it. It was gutting.” Alicia felt she “had no choice but to work for an engineering company” using her family connections.

“There is so much pressure at uni to get a job as soon as you graduate. It is tempting to apply for big corps, banks and companies that people think are bad, like oil companies. I am lucky,” she admitted, “that I could fall back on my dad, but I really did feel – and still do feel – that the only way to survive on my own is to join something like Barclays or a big company.”

Alicia also speaks about how she struggled at university, a working-class child of a single mum. “I don’t blame them for working for these places. You do what you have to survive. Where else are they going to get the money from?”

British Petroleum’s graduate programmes are globally acclaimed in Business, Science, Engineering and Trading and Shipping. It promises a cool £35,000 starting graduate salary and swathes of international offices promising exciting travel. British Petroleum is included among the most polluting companies in the world. These fifty-seven companies account for 80% of all global emissions since 2016. But the promise of financial stability is exceptionally tempting.

Like other working-class students, I have noticed a real sense of insecurity around the future. Unlike the middle-class dominated institutions, my low-income background adds vulnerability to an already insecure future. Tumultuous markets and fractured global politics become even more terrifying without a trust fund, the so-called Bank of Mum and Dad, and a network.

There is no safety net for students such as myself and Alicia, so the financial security British Petroleum offers would go a long way. Even institutions such as Blackrock, J.P. Morgan and Barclays offer financial stability that would appeal to all university students, even more so to ones from a working-class background. Blackrock and Barclays have a globally damaging carbon footprint. But the promise of social mobility – dare I say – is more attractive than securing an environmental future.

When the university careers fair season begins, I am inclined to try my luck with as many as I can find. Yes, I know BlackRock faced a complaint by the OECD about contributing to environmental and human rights abuses, but that 500 pounds over the summer could really help with the first month's rent instalment. I am well aware that a certain investment management company (which I choose not to name) greenwashes over its portfolio, but a summer internship could boost my CV and help take me out of my overdraft. And it did. I took these opportunities, not because I agreed with their line of work, but really, what other choice do I have?

Universities are eager to push forward statistics to show how employable their students are. It is a successful selling feature in the recruitment process. Imperial College London boasts of a corporate partnership scheme with the likes of Meta and Goldman Sachs. Recently, Meta released Meta AI, following on from OpenAI, Google’s Gemini and others. The increased demand on electricity and water from generative AI has been devastating, with carbon emissions produced from AI alone similar to the emissions of 22 million people annually.

These damning statistics warn of near future facing total imminent collapse. Oil consumption and disruptive technologies are on the rise, with no signs of slowing down. Are academic institutions contributing to this problem by pushing their students towards companies that guarantee ecological devastation, like we have never seen before?

Financial instability and the lack of other options are starkly visible for graduates who want to get their foot in the ladder, and I cannot help but wonder whose futures are they really helping?

I ask Alicia: How do we push back against the attractive graduate schemes offered by polluting corporations and banks? “There is not one answer to that. I simply do not know how we go about undoing this. More taxes, more graduate choice? All I do know is it is not fair we have to work for places that are destroying the planet and profiting from conflict and wars. Whose future are they even improving? Because it’s definitely not mine”