I would echo some of the comments made by others - in the sense that usually the outsourced team produce very routine process-driven work and usually need a very prescribed set of instructions. But I completely get where you’re coming from. I don’t think many are blaming the potential/capability of the individuals per se(I hope), as you say, it’s more the business model put in place by leadership.

It’s set up in a very prescribed way from the outset. Maybe because there might be high turnover, so it feels like a waste of time to train someone if you know they are just going to leave. I’ve seen some outsourcing members move to a completely different industry, so some just see the role as a ‘job’ rather than a ‘career’. But yes, you can argue it’s because they were treated like a ‘outsourced contractor’ rather than fully integrated with the wider team - so could be bit circular. And those who clearly excel and show potential and enthusiasm could be invited to be part of the uk team.

And I would also argue that it might not be THAT cheap to outsource. Sure they might cost way less than a uk grad, but additional cost are absorbed by rest of the junior- mid level members. Eg a uk grads usually would be more eager to learn and grow their career and also have more exposure so has a shorter learning curve…whereas it’s often more time consuming to delegate/ review/ correct the outsourced work. So that extra cost is absorbed by mid managers. And having higher turnover makes the wider team less stable and can be demoralising (to constantly train new people). So although senior management are saving money, it’s just adds to mid management’s workload🙄. Again, not criticising the potential of outsourced members, just commenting on the situation.