[CSSer]

I feel that you’ve glossed over my example about institutional size. I don’t mean to harp, but it’s a pretty good example of something a hiring manager can use to make positive inferences about a candidate. If hiding names and cost are really that important, perhaps we could list “institutional attributes” on resumes instead, but I’m not sure how well that would work either. It’d be hard to standardize, and there are too many things that could be missed. Unfortunately, plenty of good candidates are bad at laying out their skills and achievements. Where relevant and where it doesn’t lead to flagrantly unfair and biased treatment, resumes should have more information, not less. I say this as someone who is deeply concerned about equal and just treatment and who has recently been evaluating candidates.

> Which, in turn, will incentive the schools to prioritize education quality over hyper-marketing.

Believe me, I’m game for anything that makes that happen but I don’t think this is going to do it. But for the sake of discussion, removing this information from a resume could make identifying candidates who have gone through precisely these kinds of schools more difficult to identify. Accreditation is sadly not a catch-all. Plenty of schools have had their accreditation suspended multiple times or have various other statistics/metrics e.g. marketing/promotional spend, available which one could use to evaluate education quality, but only if you have a name to start your search with.