> Almost every other industry relies heavily on pedigree, education, social standing, references, sociability, etc.

Almost every industry, including tech, relies heavily on those things as pre-interview filters. Tech is not a meritocratic exception here.

How many traders at Goldman Sachs don't have degrees from Penn/Harvard/Yale/etc? I bet not very many. Yet some of the best developers I know are self-taught or went to no-name schools.

My SO works in media and I can assure you the hiring process there is completely, thoroughly, perniciously subjective. Experiencing her job search really gave me appreciation for the fact that taking a test is 80% of my interview process.

> How many traders at Goldman Sachs don't have degrees from Penn/Harvard/Yale/etc?

The big tech firms are notorious for the same thing with a slightly different set of high-prestige schools, so I don't know what difference you are trying to draw?

> How many traders at Goldman Sachs don't have degrees from Penn/Harvard/Yale/etc?

I just did a quick check in LinkedIn, choosing four people at GS with "Trader" in their title. The four schools I got: UNC Chapel Hill; Duke; Williams College; Amherst College. I find that distribution hard to correlate with your statement.

Aren't these all expensive private "elite non Ivy" schools? Maybe OP was being too restrictive with the 3 listed schools but I think the general point being implied is correct.

Chapel Hill is a relatively prestigious public school. The other three are prestigious private schools.

This is why I get a laugh out of developers who think tech has a meritocratic hiring process. The majority of real engineering (I've come to the conclusion that most of software development in the context you would identify with isn't engineering except inasmuch as the Orks in Warhammer are engaged in the practice) doesn't grill candidates to solve math or engineering trivia on a white board in 45 minutes or less.

Please, do tell what lofty work you do that deserves the holy moniker of engineering.

I'm not trying to make a point (namely, that programming isn't engineering) here, but for kicks, here's something I was told by an experienced (mechanical) engineer when I obtained my engineering license after 3 years experience as a junior engineer (aka Engineer In Training in a lot of jurisdictions):

"The only difference now is that you'll constantly have an ethical and deontological loop running in your head."

As an licensed Engineer (once again, PE in most jurisdictions, Quebec just can't agree on using the same terms as everyone else), you have an ethical, deontological and legal obligation to ensure that your work conforms to the "state of the art". You constantly have to think about the consequences of your work on everyone downstream, from workers on the shop floor, to the final customers, maintenance workers, etc.

It's not so much about the actual work (many drafters, technologists, etc could often do something an engineer has done), but about the profound care that went into making sure it was right.

Hey, software developers do that too... Management just doesn't reward us for it.

I work in data science and machine learning. I interview and as the lead on the team I strongly advocate for practices that are very close to the engineering practices in real engineering, insofar as it's possible. My academic background included engineering (aerospace) and most of my undergrad friends went that route. We all have a good laugh at the practice of "engineering" in the software industry now and again.

I wasn't actually interested, mostly just trying to point out that your holier-than-thou attitude isn't really helpful to the discussion. I really doubt that you're some kind of data science deity because you got an engineering degree.

Suppose you have a job for a Kernel hacker. You have John, who has zillions of non-trivial patches applied upstream available, but "flubbed a BFS traversal". And you have Joe, who you haven't heard before but took a whole year doing nothing but traversing graphs and trees to pass your interview. Who would you reject?

Whiteboard interviews are not for hyper specialized roles. They're for companies who get hundreds of applicants every week. Right tool for the job.

In this instance if I were John I probably wouldn't want to work for the company anyways because they clearly have no idea how to hire.

Problem is that most companies copy “the right tool” for all the jobs just because the famous big brother(s) do(es) it.