I believe this is also an indicator of an industry maturing.
Spin back to ten years ago and Silicon Valley wasn't wholly reliant only on institutional knowledge and skillsets were earned through work experience. Hiring a stereotypical computer hacker that's also a social misfit rebel was because those were the ones possessing the skills that colleges didn't teach.
My boss while I was at the big fruit company told me stories about how back then, back when it was still a garage startup of the literal sense, if someone showed up, poking around, and asked for a job was given some job to do. If they lasted and are competent they were hired. Only the true nerds came around, because only true nerds cared about computers.
That's not true nowadays.
Now that the body of knowledge has been collected and distributed, now that the lead time has diminished and colleges are teaching skills in almost real time, a college degree has a benefit of sorting those capable of finishing a 4 year project and those that don't.
The lambda between two candidates, one that earned his stripes while on the job while the other having a degree, has diminished. In that case, why risk it? No one ever got fired for investing or hiring an Ivy League grad.
Now that the body of knowledge has been collected and distributed, now that the lead time has diminished and colleges are teaching skills in almost real time, a college degree has a benefit of sorting those capable of finishing a 4 year project and those that don't.
I would feel better about this new status quo if there were more meaningful overlap between what they teach in universities and what skills one needs to be a successful software developer.
I was thinking specifically between the (intentional) difference between a typical computer science curriculum and the specific skills that professionals use.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to come from an academic field of study and immediately slot into professional work without having to pick up new skills.
When you invest in startup you lose by default. Investing in Ivy League grads does not seem like a good strategy. Let's say 95% startups fail; 90% Ivy League grads' startups fail. An obvious improvement but you still lose by a wide margin. Someone who is able to invest in the top startups of which say only 75% fail will run circles around you.
I think that's right in many ways. That being said there's still a big difference between Good and Great and just hiring out of habit from big schools probably doesn't increase your chances of getting Great by all that much.
Spin back to ten years ago and Silicon Valley wasn't wholly reliant only on institutional knowledge and skillsets were earned through work experience. Hiring a stereotypical computer hacker that's also a social misfit rebel was because those were the ones possessing the skills that colleges didn't teach.
My boss while I was at the big fruit company told me stories about how back then, back when it was still a garage startup of the literal sense, if someone showed up, poking around, and asked for a job was given some job to do. If they lasted and are competent they were hired. Only the true nerds came around, because only true nerds cared about computers.
That's not true nowadays.
Now that the body of knowledge has been collected and distributed, now that the lead time has diminished and colleges are teaching skills in almost real time, a college degree has a benefit of sorting those capable of finishing a 4 year project and those that don't.
The lambda between two candidates, one that earned his stripes while on the job while the other having a degree, has diminished. In that case, why risk it? No one ever got fired for investing or hiring an Ivy League grad.