[BeetleB]

> You'd have to provide evidence for the first half of that statement though.

I've worked for 10 years and recently applied for a position. The manager told me I was a good candidate, and that I checked the box for coming from a top school.

He didn't use the phrase "checked the box" but did explicitly say that my coming from a top school meant he could skip most of the technical portion of the interview and just focus on the people aspect.

But for the most part I agree with you. It usually is important for the first job.

[packetlost]

For the first job, I agree that it's important and I don't even have a problem with it being a factor. What I do have a problem with is discriminating salary or hiring based on what school you went to 5+ years into your career, by which point it matters a lot less.

[BeetleB]

> For the first job, I agree that it's important and I don't even have a problem with it being a factor.

As someone who went both to a top school and a very average school, I do have a problem with it. If you've not been to an average school, you may be surprised at how many bright and motivated students there are.[1] And if you've not been to a top school, you may be surprised at how average most of the students are.

I don't know if this generalizes, but it was my observation: Top school students tended to be a bit less honest (soft cheating, etc). At least where I was, it appeared to be clearly tied to the competitiveness needed to get in and get top grades.

[1] My grad school group-mate, who had only been at top schools, once went for an internship in a national lab. He was shaken at the fact that another intern from the University of Alabama-Huntsville was as capable/smart as he was. I saw this often in top school students, where they just assume that if they're doing well in school, that they are somehow better educated than the rest of the country.

[packetlost]

I've only ever been to 'average schools.' With no data to back up this claim, I'd be willing to bet even the worst students that graduate from top schools are still better than the lower end of average from average schools, because the barrier to entry (and continued attendance) at top schools is higher. I'd also not be surprised if your claim of top school graduates being less honest were true, for the same reasons.

If I were in a position to interview and hire someone, graduating from a top school would at least garner some attention, assuming the degree was relevant, but it's not a 'free pass' through any of the steps of the interview process, and may even earn them a more critical assessment in the implicit 'culture fit/personality' category.

This is just my opinion on the matter, not trying to make any sort of factual claims.

[BeetleB]

> I'd be willing to bet even the worst students that graduate from top schools are still better than the lower end of average from average schools,

That may be true, but likely both of these have poor GPAs and thus are filtered out anyway. Usually you'll be evaluating candidates with at least a decent GPA.

I'm not claiming the average is the same between the two. But when there are a lot more average schools than top schools, chances are that numerically most good candidates do not come from top schools.

When I look at resumes of new grads, I ignore the school altogether. GPA has to meet some not-high threshold, and then it's just a peek at interesting projects they may have done.