Sonofanump;1056492 wrote:Does this really exist? I'd think if you could get an interview, you have just as much chance at the job as a Kent, Toledo or Akron grad as you would as a OSU, UM or Northwestern grad if you impress with the interview. It's not where you go, it's what you get out of it.
In my industry (law), it's where you go and how you do that matters. We hire from 14 national schools and then whatever the top regional school is in our market. We have firm grade/class rank cutoffs at each school. This is how every top law firm hires, and it's a system that seems to work. We don't interview someone from a school outside of our feeder schools, period.
Here's the reasoning: we're going to hire 5-10 people each year for my office. There are 40,000 or so people graduating each year from law school. There's no realistic way we're going to review them all. If we limit ourselves to the top 14 schools + a regional school, our 5-10 are coming from a pool of 3,000-4,000 or so. That's a big enough number to find our 5-10. Are there great students at crappy schools who could add value? Probably. But how do we identify those people? Getting into a top law school is largely a function of having a high IQ (resulting in a high LSAT score). Doing well is a combination of being sharp, efficient, and putting in long hours. So if we just take people who do well at top schools, we know that we're picking from a pretty heavily culled field and can find 5-10 good people. Why bother going over resumes from some crappy school to try to identify some star that chose to go to a bad school, even though they know or should know that good firms only hire from a handful of schools?
Different industries are, of course, different, and I don't claim to speak for all industries. But this is how we do it, and it works out pretty well for virtually all good law firms.