>Unfortunately, "went to MIT" is both easily recognizable and easily verified.
Most people miss the point on why this is important. MIT doesn't teach its undergrads anything they couldn't learn at the local state school for a fraction of the price. But you have to be really smart to get in to MIT. That's what employers care about - not what you did when you were there, but that you got in.
The root of the problem is Griggs v Duke Power. This problem isn't going to go away until companies can give IQ tests again without the legal peril, because otherwise employers don't have much to go on besides where you went to school.
MIT doesn't teach its undergrads anything they couldn't learn at the local state school
I think it's more subtle than that. If you start with people who are very good at learning (which is all you can know about them at college entry time) then you can teach them more in 4 years than you can the "average" person. So the MIT guys probably really do learn more. The question is of course the extent to which that translates to on-the-job performance, as good learner doesn't imply good doer.
Most people miss the point on why this is important. MIT doesn't teach its undergrads anything they couldn't learn at the local state school for a fraction of the price. But you have to be really smart to get in to MIT. That's what employers care about - not what you did when you were there, but that you got in.
The root of the problem is Griggs v Duke Power. This problem isn't going to go away until companies can give IQ tests again without the legal peril, because otherwise employers don't have much to go on besides where you went to school.