Eh... maybe. But that is only an initial hire effect. Once you get into a big company, there is a salary band for each pay grade, so things even out if there is meritocracy.

Years ago, when I lived in the upper Midwest, I had fellow manager tell me he liked to hire engineers that grew up on dairy farms. "They know that they have to show up every day. They know that a certain amount of st comes along with every job, even great ones, so you might as well just spend a few minutes with a shovel and get it out of the way. They know the work doesn't get done by somebody else if they don't do it."

As a manager I've had the experience myself of convincing kids from fancy schools that, yes, I really do expect them to contribute to the less fun assignments, too. Only once did that not have a good outcome -- but that guy had other issues, too.

Sometimes it does. In my experience, starting salary is an albatross around your neck. I was by far our best performer but was compensated the same as everyone else in my position after years of excellent work, which my coworkers and supervisors would corroborate. That’s part of why I’m earning a PhD.

This is part of why potential employers in California aren’t permitted to ask you your current salary.

My starting salary in 1994 was (converting to USD), $18,000 by 2001 I was earning $84,000 (my last salary in the UK)

Starting salary doesn’t have to be a limitation, it is an uphill climb, but it’s not on your “permanent record”

Absolutely. I've personally experienced a workplace where the managers preferred hiring from the lesser respected university in the area, because they were able to undercut even more on salaries.

I've noticed this as well. Folks from less elite schools are less likely to know how much their skills are worth as well.

Lots of people I've talked to at my school don't believe software engineers can make $160k-$200k TC out of undergrad.

People need confidence, entitlement, or experience to ask for their worth. Employers know this. Companies brag about taking advantage of information asymmetry to pay us less and we applaud them for it?

No, people need multiple offers to compete for their worth. If you let one company tell you how much you're worth, then that is on you. Learning to sell yourself is also a skill, so unless employers are colluding (which I know does happen, and am not excusing), then there isn't anything insidious about paying less for people without brand name reputations.

It's the same as buying anything brand name, you're paying for the (presumed) higher probability of higher quality or reduced chance of failure.

Transparency of salaries would be a boon to the general public, but we have such a huge social stigma against discussing pay, that employers can take advantage of this, however that's not the employer's fault.