[SideQuark]

Hiring costs time, money, and other engineers time and effort. Wasting money and time reviewing a pool with less good candidates will simply lose you business over time, as you waste more resources to obtain the same result.

[beAbU]

So you are saying the Ivy League pool is the one with more better candidates?

The same pool where connections, rather than merit count? Where the candidates have (probably) been coddled by their loaded parents all their lives? Where they fake disabilities in order to get affordances such as better housing, "support" animals and so on?

[RobRivera]

Great! Let's just continue perpetuating institutionalized bias rooted in a non-metric driven hypothesis on candidate potential!

[pyuser583]

Are American universities really turning out engineers with high GPAs and relevant coursework that are unqualified? Or even create a disadvantage for their employer?

I mean realistically you don’t know how good an engineer is until they get on projects and you see their work. But that’s true for Harvard too,

[SideQuark]

Yes. Ever do hiring, or run a significant interview system? I have. Us engineers thought the same way you did, but after a significant number of interviews, we went back over resumes versus interview performance to find ways to save costs/interview more per resource used, and surprisingly to us at that point quality of college was the biggest predictor. Lower quality schools simply had a less talented or trained pool, and it was significant.

[thatfrenchguy]

And your line is thinking is how we end up with what is going on at the Pentagon, and less innovation in our industry :)

[SideQuark]

Ever run a company or do a lot of hiring? It’s not a line of thinking. If can cost effectively find equivalent candidates from a weaker pool, you’ll be rich selling that service.