==you can safely assume the MBA got there because of more nepotism and the non-MBA is the more valuable pick.==

Based on what? Cynicism?

This is a theme in Taleb's work. He would say that only suckers choose the MBA in this hypothetical, since the MBA (and their network) is optimizing for projecting an image of competence, whereas the non-MBA actually had to have competence to get where they are. https://medium.com/incerto/surgeons-should-notlook-like-surg...

It feels like flipping the initial assumption upside down in order to make a new assumption that's just as wrong, but in the opposite direction.

They should be judged on how they perform in the job interview.

I misspoke. You shouldn't "safely assume." What I mean is that all-else-equal, it's some extra information to go on for a candidate. That they might have gotten an extra boost from nepotism to their current position equivalent to the other person, and that if you had to pick between candidates, the MBA had an X% chance of not quite being as good as the other.

Yes, it's somewhat like "flipping the initial assumption upside down", but really it's just accounting for there being the opposite boost in the first place.

Candidates aren't solely judged on interview performance. Again, if things are extremely close, you'll have to include other data like career or education history to make the most informed choice.

Interesting argument