Is this the case? I know, for example, in law, your employability at desirable firms is directly linked to an aristocratic educational pedigree. Is there a reason this would not be in the case in business? While I'm sure potential HBS attendees could find something more valuable to do with their lives in those 2 years, would they really end up in investment banks and private equity firms?

These seem like employers who are all about credentials, since there's no real way to demonstrate a propensity for gutting companies or engineering IPOs a priori, and since these groups are run on autopilot by corporate drones instead of people with a real sense of ownership or entrepreneurship (and thus, a desire to acquire and retain good talent regardless of its pedigree). In such cases, the hiring seems to become 99% about the value placed on the institution that granted the degree, and 1% about showing up in an adequately expensive suit and car.

Prestige matters in finance, too. However, a JD's not really comparable to an MBA because (a) getting the post-MBA jobs you mentioned typically require prior, relevant, gold-plated work experience (Switching into these finance sub-fields is VERY hard even for HBS MBAs.) and (b) these jobs don't require an MBA (unlike many jurisdictions that require accredited JDs). JDs typically don't have gold-plated work experience and have to rely on their law school's brand for signalling.

In other words, most HBS folks who choose this high finance route already have the credentials and pedigree for the job without needing an MBA.

For the rest, I recommend googling HBS job reports and re-thinking a few of your assumptions about where/how people create value at firms.

> they could get similar offers and opportunities without an HBS stamp

Many HBS students work as analysts at management consultancies prior to their MBA, and their employers send them to HBS before promoting them to consultant. What happens when the analyst refuses to get an MBA?

The banking sector also has a recruitment funnel at the top MBA schools. While I'm sure it's possible to get your foot in the door without an Ivy League pedigree, many recruiters are focusing their attention on a handful of schools.

For consultants, think about the mechanics of getting accepted to HBS. You need a partner to give you an LOR. That speaks well for your ability to get promoted. These analysts rise without an MBA or leave for other ops.

I think you're referring to a subset of FinServ (i.e. banking) with homogeneous roles aimed at MBAs. Again, if you get into HBS, you're qualified/networked without needing the MBA. The banking cohort isn't as pedigree focused as other niches within FinServ.

Maybe they would rise. In that case, why do they feel the need to do it?