No because companies will say "Ok, we will only hire from these schools."
While some companies will say that, there's a real economic cost to that type of discrimination if the potential employee is the best available candidate, and so many companies won't care which university a person attended.
I think this is true too, provided the school actually produces a good quality education. As someone involved with hiring, the college's do tend to produce much better candidates than the cheaper alternatives for software engineering for example.
The key is that the school has a reputation for successful graduates or that the candidate himself has an extensive portfolio (at least in the case of software engineers).
It's much cheaper for an employer to discriminate potential employees based on which university they attended than to look deeply into each individual as an individual.
Why take back a decrepit, anachronistic system when you can make ones for the 21st century and be the new leaders?
This is the way things work. The productive people do dope shit, the losers and late adopters find there way in, and the productive people make newer doper shit.
Second, degrees are already known to be a relatively poor indicator of talent. That's what interviews, probationary periods, and interview practical tests are for.
While some companies will say that, there's a real economic cost to that type of discrimination if the potential employee is the best available candidate, and so many companies won't care which university a person attended.
I think this is true too, provided the school actually produces a good quality education. As someone involved with hiring, the college's do tend to produce much better candidates than the cheaper alternatives for software engineering for example.
The key is that the school has a reputation for successful graduates or that the candidate himself has an extensive portfolio (at least in the case of software engineers).
It's much cheaper for an employer to discriminate potential employees based on which university they attended than to look deeply into each individual as an individual.
Why take back a decrepit, anachronistic system when you can make ones for the 21st century and be the new leaders?
This is the way things work. The productive people do dope shit, the losers and late adopters find there way in, and the productive people make newer doper shit.
Second, degrees are already known to be a relatively poor indicator of talent. That's what interviews, probationary periods, and interview practical tests are for.
Even if you went to those schools, they are going to hire on diversity, inclusiveness, and/or h1b only.
Tesla, Google and others already recognized that college degrees are worthless.
So they hire people without degrees, but smart and know the current things.