[verst]

I think we are still quite a long way away from removing the school bias.

In my experience, the large tech companies actively recruit from select few universities (and prefer applicants from those universities). The resume screeners / sourcers are biased to look for top schools also. They often don't want to risk spending time on a candidate from a school with which they are not familiar.

Most qualified applicants never have the opportunity to prove their skills in a phone screen (e.g. coding interview). The school bias continues to exist at the resume screening stage.

It's not that different among startups (especially YC alumni).

[0xCMP]

We don't need to remove school bias. We need to create new/better schools that others can trust will put out better results than what comes out of universities.

I can't tell you how much I have urged, at times forced, my friends in CS who didn't learn programming since 7th grade (me) to do more before they graduated. Those who listened and did an intensive summer apprenticeship with a student founded web agency I worked at previously have progressed to the point where you probably couldn't tell they came from my university (which, is to say you probably never heard of it and if you got to know it, you wouldn't think very highly of it).

[kelseydh]

There's a good story in Ben Horowitz book the "Hard Thing About Hard Things" that angered me about how blatant good school vs weak school bias appears to exist within the startup world.

But it has good advice on the need to overlook people's "flaws" (if you can call them that): -----

"Hire a worldclass team" is about as helpful as telling someone to "Try their hardest." Anyone building a company likely already is, and if not, you telling them isn't going to suddenly make them try harder.

You know what's hard? Hiring a worldclass sales manager when you have a company that is trading at less than cash at the wake of the dot com bust. Astoundingly, the best sales managers in the world just weren't returning Horowitz's calls. So instead-- in one of my favorite sections of the book-- he describes hiring Mark Cranney.

It was a decision most of his board and his executive team were violently against. (Lesson to Horowitz: "No one else gets a vote.") Cranney actively made people feel uncomfortable-- not what you want in a sales guy. Horowitz describes him as physically looking like a perfect "square." But he was a savant at how to build an effective sales team.

My favorite passage is when Horowitz sat down to explain to his cofounder-- and to many, the face of the company-- Andreessen why he was hiring him:

I let Marc open the conversation...by listing his issues with Cranney: doesn't look or sound like a head of sales, went to a weak school, makes him uncomfortable. I listened very carefully and replied, "I agree with every single one of those isues. However, Mark Cranney is a sales savant. He has mastered sales to a level that far exceeds anybody that I have ever known. If he didn't have the things wrong with him that you enumerated, he wouldn't be willing to join a company that just traded at thirty-five cents per share; he'd be the CEO of IBM." Marc's reply came quickly: "Got it. Let's hire him!" That is the reality of how you hire as a startup CEO going through any degree of shit, which let's face it, they all are. Unless you are Facebook, you can't call whoever you want an offer them a job. (And truth be told, even Facebook doesn't have a 100% batting average on hiring.) You have to find the person the best at the single unique skill you need and tolerate everything else that comes with them. The reason they aren't running IBM despite their skills. That is helpful hiring advice.

(https://pando.com/2014/03/04/the-hard-thing-about-hard-thing...) ------

Anyways, personally I prefer companies using screening tests over degrees because it is more meritocratic.

[gohrt]

That's a very awkwardly written story, but "know what league you are in" is solid advice. It's Moneyball in another domain.