I would argue the opposite. That it's harder to weed out incompetent people from Ivy schools because so many of the people there are there based on their wealth and not their merit.
You have some really talented people (especially on full rides), and you have a bunch of average to slightly above average talent with a) a 1st class education from birth and b) good networks.
Both of those things have real world value, you can't dismiss out of hand. Yes, it's privilege - that's how it works.
The idea that the ivy league is swimming with under-performing people who are only there because of wealth and connections just isn't true.
What is closer to truth - there are lots of people there who are a bit above average capability, very good preparation, and also have family money and/or connections.
In a truly broad, merit only based admissions process most of these people wouldn't make the cut. But it's not because they are weak students, rather because the number of slots in ivy is a small number compared to the total number of strong potential students in the country if you looked really hard.
I'm saying from experience, this is not the case. I've found ivy league CS students to consistently under perform. School in general is not a strong signal, but for whatever reason the ivys consistently produce people who struggle to ship.
My original point is that OSS contribution is a strong signal and what people should look at if they want strong developers. I'm sure other industries have other work oriented methods for determining aptitude.
And I'm saying from experience this is the case - so I guess we're at an impasse due to selection bias. Maybe I've just had better luck in picking them.
Agree there are other better signals sometimes available. For what it's worth "has a CS degree" isn't a great indicator for a developer at all in my experience, with a very few programs excepted (e.g. CMU, Waterloo). But this has nothing to do with ivy vs. non-ivy.
The idea that ivy's are awash with people having little talent is still just silly though.
Totally agree.
> The idea that ivy's are awash with people having little talent is still just silly though.
I would say it's more that they are average but the degree tends to float them to the top of a stack of cvs, so there's a premium you pay in terms of attention (and money if you hire them) that in my experience, is not worth it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26242516
> This we agree on. But we have to factor in adverse selection. If you're a prestigious employer, adverse selection is going to be small to non existent. The Harvard grads joining Dropbox are going to be all excellent. If you're a tier-2 employer with no particular unique value proposition, a Harvard grad that is willing to join you isn't the same thing as a randomly selected Harvard grad (unless there's a compelling reason why they would want to join), let alone the same thing as a Harvard grad entering Dropbox. There are selection effects working against you as an employer.
Edit:
I'll add that if you're hiring in tech, you're fairly unlikely to run into ivy league grads who got in primarily on the basis of their wealth. Computer Science attracts upwardly mobile types who got into these schools because they were nerdy overachievers and tends not to attract people born into wealth (they typically have better options and coding isn't really that prestigious at this level).
This has not been my experience at all. There are plenty of wealthy ivy CS students. Most non-wealthy CS people go to a more "normal" university known for CS like UW or CMU.