[hyperbovine]

  They can't let in anyone who is good enough to go to MIT because there is only so much space.

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head--consequently, "good enough" doesn't cut it to get into MIT. You have to be the best of the best. Which means, if you're looking to hire the best of the best, you look for people who went to MIT. As you also rightly point out, this is not discrimination because clearly they'd be willing to hire a badass who didn't go to a top school. The job market is one giant signaling game, and having a rocking degree is a strong signal.

[tsally]

You have to be the best of the best.

Not quite. You have to be the diverse of the best (if I may mutilate English to make my point). Horror stories come out every year of the kid with perfect test scores and GPA who gets rejected from [insert prestigious school here]. It's not enough (and rightly so) to be the best of the best. You've got to have something different. Some distinguishing factors that come to mind are:

* Socio-economic background

* Athletic and musical ability

* Ethnicity and gender

* Unusual, proven talent in some rare area

[sown]

No I think you mis understood me. Being best-of-best isn't good enough, either. They've got to throw in some other random elements to make it look...I dunno, fair, different, genuine?

I just fail to see how being an expert viola player or a state ping pong ball champ or a <gender,race combo> is going to help someone write superior software or conduct excellent science.

And I mean in a real, verifiable way, not some unconvincing, weak collection of anecdotes.

Of course, I'm not saying I can write super-superior software.

[charlesmarshall]

mit - best of the best .. that can afford it and fit in a niche they haven't filled you mean?

I think the trouble in this case would be the recruiting company that are reading them and only passing on the ones that tick all the right buzz word boxes ..