in today’s womp womp news; excerpted from essay snark:
Here’s one key excerpt:
Evaluators relied so intensely on “school” as a criterion of evaluation not because they believed that the content of elite curricula better prepared students for life in their firms – in fact, evaluators tended to believe that elite and, in particular, super-elite instruction was “too abstract,” “overly theoretical,” or even “useless” compared to the more “practical” and “relevant” training offered at “lesser” institutions…
[I]t was not the content of an elite education that employers valued but rather the perceived rigor of these institutions’ admissions processes. According to this logic, the more prestigious a school, the higher its “bar” for admission, and thus the “smarter” its student body.
So basically, the hiring managers felt that the top universities actually did a worse job of educating students for the practicalities of their field, yet they preferred those universities over lower-ranked state schools because of the more rigorous admissions process.
In other words, it’s less important that you graduated from Harvard or Stanford or Wharton, but that you got accepted there in the first place.
Disgusting and discouraging and frankly pathetic.
It’s an old boys’ network still. Not sure what forces may ever change this.
for the full depressing study on how elite firms (i-banking, management consulting, and law) hire, check out the library of economics and liberty.