It’s true. There are brainless hiring managers who will greenlight anyone with a fancy school on their resume just like there are consumers who will fork over a month’s salary for a handbag with right logo. If you want to work for people like that, by all means, knock yourself out jumping through Ivy school hoops.

If you care about results, focus on results and the rest will follow.

I mean, the Ivies have a pretty darn good track record of 'results' too.

Where do you think are places with better 'results'?

Not trolling here, I am genuinely curious as to your metric and the places/things that fit it.

Kids that just graduated don't have any results to look at, besides the schooling they've managed to complete. With no other knowledge, if you had to choose between a kid with a stanford degree and a kid with a south harmon institute of technology degree, which would you imagine is more capable?

I am probably quite wrong on this, but I have always believed that the people smart enough to get into MIT, Harvard, Yale, etc. were probably smart enough that they didn't even truly need to go there. It's more for connections and a formality than for pure educational attainment.

For example, Bill Gates left Harvard after two years. He did quite fine without graduating by most metrics. I imagine he would have been quite successful, perhaps in a different way, had he not attended at all.

They may not have needed to go, but they almost certainly received advantages for having gone.

Even Billy G would have had two years of knowledge of people whom he could tap - and if you go back and research early Microsoft, I bet you'd see evidence of that.

Billy G had mommy :) Look her up on wikipedia.

Harvard works more for people like steve ballmer than it does for bill gates.