What they signal? Like generational wealth and elite connections? [1]
I have definitely seen hiring managers lean very hard on pedigree so they didn't have to do the actual work of evaluating candidates. It was basically the same deal with a lot of certifications, like Scrum/Agile and Java certs.
I also think that your bucketing people such that Harvard = smart and state school = "the opposite" is a great example of the problem. Personally, I'd always rather work with somebody who has had to work their way up, as they tend to have a more balanced perspective.
Nope, intelligence matters at the end if that person works hard too, there is no ceiling unlike the opposite. Intelligence or/and hard work alone can only carry you so far, there are so many other factors that lead to success (ex: luck)
As a business, you bet your risks against the person who has been vetted vs. the unproven one.
I get why on HN saying "intelligence matters" seems like an uncontroversial opinion. Under the right circumstances and ceteris paribus, it can help. But it doesn't always. Indeed, as a person who is officially very smart, that has often been a problem for me. E.g., the way smart people can easily learn to perform smartness rather than doing the long-term smart thing. Or our tendency to value theory over experience and book smarts over street smarts. Early on, being smart also helped me avoid learning discipline and gumption, two things without which smartness may not do a lot of good.
And anyway, you're again, not very smartly, ignoring the point that a fancy degree doesn't correlate particularly well with smartness, so the whole intelligence thing is a bit of a sideshow to the actual discussion here.
Simply having 1/3 of Harvard admissions being legacy does not disprove that those who go to Ivy Leagues are not intelligent. On the contrary, studies show that IQ is highly genetic (up to 80%). So it is just reasonable for admission offices to accept students based on family ties
There is also a correlation between IQ, general intelligence and SAT scores (a requirement for admissions), despite what the media portrays.
FYI: Media is manipulated to create controversy and get views. Scientific studies are not perfect, but has far lower cases due to the peer review process, except for privately funded research
Hah. Look at you cherry-picking the numbers. And apparently not being able to work with them. Legacy admissions aren't used as a proxy for IQ; they're used as a proxy for power and money. Indeed, if the SAT is as good a measure as your non-study says, they could drop legacy admissions entirely. Ask yourself why they don't.
But what you're really dodging is the question of how much the very narrow sort characteristic tested by IQ really matters for hiring. I get that you think it's super important. Probably because you see yourself there. But as somebody in the top 1% of IQ scores, I'm telling you it's not a great way to select employees, and in many circumstances it can correlate negatively. You can use it for hiring if you want, and if you work for a competitor, I encourage you to. But I sure won't.
Again, digressing from the initial statement. The only variable in question here is intelligence and its correlation to top schools.
Employment is a separate matter, the follow up will be if leadership or management competence (different) is tied to intelligence and elite school attendance.
I have definitely seen hiring managers lean very hard on pedigree so they didn't have to do the actual work of evaluating candidates. It was basically the same deal with a lot of certifications, like Scrum/Agile and Java certs.
I also think that your bucketing people such that Harvard = smart and state school = "the opposite" is a great example of the problem. Personally, I'd always rather work with somebody who has had to work their way up, as they tend to have a more balanced perspective.
[1] E.g.: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/07/harvards-freshman-class-is-m...