I must say, there are a lot of presumptions being thrown around about "Top 20 School" alum. There are numerous benefits (and draw-backs) to going to such schoo

I must say, there are a lot of presumptions being thrown around about "Top 20 School" alum. There are numerous benefits (and draw-backs) to going to such schools but to make broad assessments about individuals who attended the schools is asinine, like any other stereotype. Essentially the argument here is that ivy-leaguers have better options when leaving college so, all things being equal, with an ivy-leaguer and a lower-tier school alum in the same job you'd expect the ivy-leaguer to be less skilled. The point that is neglected is that the screening process for top-tier schools is substantially more difficult, so much so that it is feasible to see a student from the lowest quartile of the student body at a top-tier school that would have performed in the highest quartile at a less rigorous school. (note: less rigorous is not meant to be a comment on educational quality, only a comment on the intensity of the academic assignments). In this context it's unclear to me why the above comment makes sense. Maybe there's some anecdotal evidence that was not included but, lacking a decent sample, assertions like this are more representative of the biases of those that post them than reality.