Every college and university has a strong incentive to attempt to select the best applicants. It is safe to assume that the best schools have thought a lot about how to pick the best candidates and it is also safe to assume that the administrations have figured out criteria that highly correlate to future applicant success.
I did not grow up in a big city. I grew up in a place where a state degree from a good college was enough to show aptitude and I did not understand the value of attending and paying for a school like Harvard. Now that I am older, I have moved to a few big cities and currently live in SF. Unfortunately, in SF, having a Harvard degree is pretty standard / common and people that did not attend a 'top university' are regularly passed over for funding (YC) and positions at top companies etc.
I understand why. If I am a hiring manager and everyone in the world is applying to my company, I might as well pick people who went to Harvard / MIT / Stanford. But... it does mean that a decision someone made when they were 17 years old will keep them out of a lot of interviews regardless of how successful they were after they attending XYZ state college.
I attended a state college 15 years ago that most people on the west coast do not pay much attention to. I have now worked at some of the top companies in the world and I have noticed a really, really strong pattern.
People who attended no name schools and worked to get an offer at a great company are typically the best performers at the next company.
If I were looking to hire / fund someone, I would always look favorably on those that attended a top institution, then had a track record of success. In addition to the 'standard' applicant, I would look really hard at those that attended a lower tier school and 'outperformed' their peers.
I did not grow up in a big city. I grew up in a place where a state degree from a good college was enough to show aptitude and I did not understand the value of attending and paying for a school like Harvard. Now that I am older, I have moved to a few big cities and currently live in SF. Unfortunately, in SF, having a Harvard degree is pretty standard / common and people that did not attend a 'top university' are regularly passed over for funding (YC) and positions at top companies etc.
I understand why. If I am a hiring manager and everyone in the world is applying to my company, I might as well pick people who went to Harvard / MIT / Stanford. But... it does mean that a decision someone made when they were 17 years old will keep them out of a lot of interviews regardless of how successful they were after they attending XYZ state college.
I attended a state college 15 years ago that most people on the west coast do not pay much attention to. I have now worked at some of the top companies in the world and I have noticed a really, really strong pattern.
People who attended no name schools and worked to get an offer at a great company are typically the best performers at the next company.
If I were looking to hire / fund someone, I would always look favorably on those that attended a top institution, then had a track record of success. In addition to the 'standard' applicant, I would look really hard at those that attended a lower tier school and 'outperformed' their peers.