Replies

Here is the key sentence that is revealing to me ...

Despite more and more evidence that graduates of the most selective schools do not earn much more over their lifetimes than their counterparts at other very good but less selective colleges, many students (and their parents, who pay the freight) still believe there is the kind of earnings premium for attending elite schools that might have existed a half century back.

I can speak as owning a consulting firm for over ten years that had a retained search division. there are about ten things that had a correlation to success on the job. Approximate order the highest correlation first

1. Track record. What did you achieve, promotions, etc.
2. Level of education HS College, Masters PhD(not less than masters)
3. Degree subject. Business - technical - professional. Forget Liberal arts - Physchology - LLD a waste if you want to go into management.
4. references - real ones not the pre worked ones. The best reference - your bosses secretary.
5. Presentation - both written and physical BS factor may help, but if it does you wouldn't want to work there.
5. Resume' (short and to the point - should vary depending)
6. Grades - no correlation
7. School - no correlation unless processional, then only if recruiter is a dope.
8. The interview very low correlation. However a good interview can snow lots people when they ignore the first 5
9. Age negative correlation. Hire the old farts.
10. I can't remember - hey it works with grand juries.

"Despite more and more evidence that graduates of the most selective schools do not earn much more over their lifetimes than their counterparts at other very good but less selective colleges, many students (and their parents, who pay the freight) still believe there is the kind of earnings premium for attending elite schools that might have existed a half century back."

The only kids who go to elitist schools that earn the big bucks are the kids of wealthy parents who get them their jobs after they graduate.