I'm not too sure about the market correcting these inefficiencies in the near future. I mean, I understand your point, and it makes total sense, but it may not

I'm not too sure about the market correcting these inefficiencies in the near future. I mean, I understand your point, and it makes total sense, but it may not be in everyone's interest to act on this. Let me give you an example. I interned in a company in France that would hire only from the top 3 engineering and top 3 business schools in France. I had friends who where very successful interns in the company, but who didn't get hired full time in the end because they came from the 4th or 5th business school. Now I've been talking about this a lot, and the main argument I heard was: HR people are just trying to cover their asses in case something goes wrong. In France (I don't know if it's the same here), firing an employee is so difficult that companies want to make sure they don't screw up when hiring. Or rather, HR want to make sure that if they screw up, nobody can hold them responsible. If they think a non-degree holder would be a good fit, that they hire him, and that this non-degree holder turns out to be not so good, then everybody is going to ask them why on earth did they bet on someone with no degree. If they stick to someone from a top school, they can still say: look, he seemed really good, he has top credentials.. it's just bad luck, we did everything possible. Someone mentioned institutional inertia above. I think that's exactly what this is about. Note: I'm not generalizing to all HR people. I've read lots of posts on HN concerning the hiring process, and it seems that people take it seriously in the startup world. My small experience in big companies tells me that it works differently there.