I believe this has to do with the perception and signaling of potential.
Potential, when unrealized, contains more parts unknown than the known. You can measure some things - like GPA, school ranking, standardized test results, and so on.
If/when you do get employed, then that also becomes a new measure - and to some degree, lays the foundation for other speculation.
Put this way: If someone opts to work for a "C" level company, does this change the expected value of that candidate? If the candidate is "A" level, why would they join a "C" level company? The simplest answer for an observer, would probably be that they are simply not "A" level material, and probably closer to where they've been.
IMO - that's flawed thinking, as there are tons of variables, but it seems to be how many think. It's like with sports - often times top clubs will get top talent.
But yeah, back to the perception. Now you have a new datapoint - which could could drag you down - while your competitors still have the benefit of less information. These candidates can leverage their potential more, simply because the people hiring know less about them, and will have to take a larger chance / risk on hiring them. But as long as their other measures are ok, that might be worth it.
Potential, when unrealized, contains more parts unknown than the known. You can measure some things - like GPA, school ranking, standardized test results, and so on.
If/when you do get employed, then that also becomes a new measure - and to some degree, lays the foundation for other speculation.
Put this way: If someone opts to work for a "C" level company, does this change the expected value of that candidate? If the candidate is "A" level, why would they join a "C" level company? The simplest answer for an observer, would probably be that they are simply not "A" level material, and probably closer to where they've been.
IMO - that's flawed thinking, as there are tons of variables, but it seems to be how many think. It's like with sports - often times top clubs will get top talent.
But yeah, back to the perception. Now you have a new datapoint - which could could drag you down - while your competitors still have the benefit of less information. These candidates can leverage their potential more, simply because the people hiring know less about them, and will have to take a larger chance / risk on hiring them. But as long as their other measures are ok, that might be worth it.