I would argue that as University education has scaled up and become commoditized, the value of a generic degree as a signaling function has decreased, and that in response the value of matriculation to a top school has only increased. Schools are just brands and become an extension of the personal brands of their students and alums. Unless you're studying a hard science or similar, I'd bet that the value of lower ranked schools will become obsolete sooner.

To add a little additional context: the prestigious school I was accepted to wasn't exactly highly known for the field I was going into, and with the reality of grade inflation at top-tier schools, I figured I might get a better, or at least more hard-nosed, you-better-work kind of experience at the state school.

I'll never be able to truly compare the two, but I know at my state school that I learned a lot, improved my ability to learn, and gained a lot in perseverance, not to mention made some great friends.

My friends generally did not have parents who worked at top Wall Street firms, were nationally-elected politicians, or were celebrities, and my friends generally were not going to work at the most high-paying, time-demanding, possibly-quality-of-life-shrinking companies/jobs. That's okay, because I don't want to do 80 or 100 hour work weeks, and I don't want the people around me encouraging that, because I want to experience a lot more to life than those kinds of work experiences. Nothing wrong with people who want that, but this route worked well for me.

Part of why it worked for me is because I was privileged enough to have parents who helped me understand myself and what I wanted out of life.

I think education is going to radically change in the next decade or so. Online education is going to come up to par with the greatest of institutions. The missing link is the actual credential. The signal of the end of education as we knew it in the past is when a wealthy/powerful person comes out and endorses one of these things in a real way. For example, if Elon Musk comes out and says SpaceX considers a cert from $NetflixOfEducation as equal to an engineering degree from MIT on a resume... then it's all over. I believe this will certainly happen at some point, it's just a matter of when.

Generally I agree with your view, but there are real hiring problems that have to be solved first.

>if Elon Musk comes out and says SpaceX considers a cert from $NetflixOfEducation as equal to an engineering degree from MIT on a resume... then it's all over.

If 50 developers apply for a job and 3 of them are from MIT and 47 are from lesser known schools, using the MIT signal as a filter is efficient. If $NetflixOfEducation is too accessible and half of the applicants have it, then it loses its value as a hiring signal. Of course there are other filters too. Previous employers is an important one. You can create comprehensive professional examinations like they do in medicine, where a passing grade is a major achievement. But these don't scale well because the more they scale the easier it is to cheat, especially if the risks of getting caught cheating are minor (i.e. there aren't previous barriers that must be overcome via investment of time in other institutions first).

The other dynamic of top schools is the networking effect. There is real value in concentrating thousands of the "best and brightest" together in one place and bouncing them off each other. It doesn't scale, which is both a problem (for qualified people who are excluded for whatever reason) and a benefit (for those who participate, there is value in the scarcity).

As someone who's had the opportunity to go through a pile of 100+ resumes and have met people who have gone to Ivy League (or other top technical schools like Stanford, UC Berkeley, MIT, etc) I definitely do not put too much weight on education (even for new grads). As a software engineer I'd rather put weight on their projects and accomplishments. I've seen a lot of students from prestigious schools with high GPAs who completely bomb the in person interviews.

> If $NetflixOfEducation is too accessible and half of the applicants have it, then it loses its value as a hiring signal.

Only for companies who hire for signals.

For companies that hire for throughput this does not hold.

I actually think it's a bit more complicated than that. For a large company trying to fill a ton of openings, I think where you went to college is actually an even more important filtering criteria (ie an Ivy League degree is almost an automatic pass from resume to phone screen), but the list of colleges that get a near automatic pass is larger.

What do you mean by "throughput" and how do you measure it ahead of an interview? Given 50 resumes for an open position, how do you select whom to interview? Does your process scale to many dozens or hundreds of open positions per year?

People have been saying this about most new technology for a long time. Between the printing press and the television this isn't new. The University abides.

As a hiring manager, I don't agree with this. Frankly, although I always look for a person's education history, the only time this actually matters is if it allows me to make small talk with them during introductions.

Additionally, a person with a hard science BS from a small college may well have received a far superior education than someone graduating from a top tier university in the same discipline. It makes a huge difference for many students how engaged their professors are in teaching, vs research.

This isn't accurate, for instance the data structures/algorithms courses at top schools are significantly more attuned to how industry hiring works than mediocre schools like the one I went to, where you need a lot of external practice in order to be able to pass interviews.

I suppose it depends on what industry, and also where you're hoping to get hired?

My undergrad courses might not have gotten me totally ready for an interview at a FAANG company (though it's been over a decade since I graduated!), but that also wasn't a goal of mine.

And my undergrad courses did totally prepare me for a few interviews at very highly-respected companies, complete with job offers, without needing a lot of external practice.

Do companies use school pedigree for filtering? Yes. Are there other ways to stand out from the crowd? Yes.

I’m not talking about filtering. I’m talking about succeeding in interviews.

> If you aren't networking a top school, I don't see the purpose, we all learn math.

Indeed. Additionally --- not sure if this is true for all fields --- the stuff taught on the college level is basic enough so that passable level of teaching is fine, as better teaching is marginally useful for good students. Things change a bit on the doctoral level, where the topics diverge more and it's important to go to a good direction early on --- however, not sure how much this differentiates universities inside the US.