Networking or Nepotism? The Role of University Societies in Shaping Elite Business Circles

Photo courtesy: Diago G Diaz via Creative Commons

“70% of jobs aren’t even advertised,” the career advisor whispers, hinting at the hidden pathways to employment. University societies—whether in student journalism, corporate groups, or the arts—frequently act as conduits to these exclusive networks. They promise access to hidden opportunities, powerful alumni connections, and CV-enhancing experiences that few outside of their circles can access. But does this merely reflect intelligent networking, or is there something more sinister at work?

The Making of Elite Networks

The allure of university societies often lies in their ability to open doors to the job market. Research by Martin (2009) highlights that social networks on elite campuses significantly influence post-graduation outcomes, particularly for high-status professions like law or finance. These networks act as pipelines, connecting students to industry leaders who can offer them advice or opportunities not available via traditional avenues.

But access to these networks is unequal, and university societies often become echo chambers of privilege, dominated by those with more resources and higher levels of social capital (Li, Savage, and Warde, 2008). Though rarely exclusionary in formal terms, one need only look at the schooling backgrounds in corporate societies or the casting choices of student productions to realise that these are not representative groups. Particularly when roles are poorly advertised, success in these spaces hinges on networks and experiences that students bring with them to university, which tend to be rooted in pre-existing privileges.

Privilege in Disguise

Networking involves building mutually beneficial relationships, often celebrated as a professional skill. Nepotism, by contrast, leverages pre-existing social capital—connections rooted in familial, institutional, or socio-economic privilege—to secure opportunities. Indirect nepotism blurs the line between these categories, combining inherited privilege with a level of genuine competence.  It’s not that those who benefit are incapable—it’s that equally skilled people without the same connections are quietly pushed aside. 

University societies exemplify this dynamic, offering committee roles and opportunities that appear merit-based but often favour insiders due to largely unscrutinised processes. Over time, prestigious societies become dominated by those from privileged backgrounds, evolving into homogenous networks that reflect the socio-economic and ethnic divides of society at large (Mayer and Puller, 2007). Since participation in prestigious groups elevates an individual’s perceived moral and social merit in the eyes of employers (Holmqvist, 2023), inequalities cascade: a committee position leads to a vacation scheme, then an internship, and finally a competitive graduate job.

Hiring managers, often products of similar backgrounds, unconsciously reinforce these patterns by seeking candidates who “fit the mould.” And so the story repeats. Cornwell and Cornwell (2008) show that access to expert networks remains skewed toward privileged individuals later in life, and Burhan et al. (2020) warn of the resulting erosion of trust in hiring processes. Networking in university societies is merely a prelude to this larger play of systemic inequality, where access is reserved for the well-connected and privilege masquerades as talent, sustaining its dominance unchecked.

This trajectory is not inevitable, but it is undeniably common. Students from affluent backgrounds are more likely to join multiple societies, afford participation fees, and travel for networking events (Lehmann, 2019). By contrast, working-class students tend to rely on formal job postings and human capital—intelligence, hard skills, and resilience. University societies, far from being mere extracurricular activities, act as critical gatekeepers in professional development.

Breaking the Cycle

To disrupt this cycle, transparency is key. Employers must move beyond society memberships as proxies for talent and instead focus on verifiable measures of aptitude and potential. At the same time, universities must confront the exclusivity of societies by promoting diverse participation and further subsidising fees for underrepresented students. As Dobos (2017) argues, ethical networking requires a delicate balance: fostering connections without reinforcing systemic exclusion. By questioning the fairness of current practices, universities and employers can begin to dismantle the barriers that these societies perpetuate.

Nepotism does not begin in boardrooms or recruitment offices; its seeds are sown much earlier—at society meetings, networking drinks, and exclusive alumni events. If universities care about fairness, they must address the hidden hierarchies nurtured within their walls.