In my experience, major companies are aware of this problem, and would love to find a solution.
Frankly, the problem is that, ultimately, they want to hire the best people. Most of the time, the best people are sourced from the top-tier schools.
On the other hand, in my experience, they pride themselves on finding great people from outside of that small circle. When they do find such a person, it's not uncommon for he or she to excel.
I'm glad my metrics are "great to work with" and "huge upside potential" instead of "can whiteboard an algorithm well" and "middle-upper class in appearance"
It's totally legit to ask you what your definition of the 'best' candidate is, because you made a claim: that the best people come from the top schools.
How are we to conclude that your argument has any worth whatsoever when you aren't able to even define the components of the claim you are making?
We all know that "best" is subjective, and defined by each company.
Google is fairly vocal about their efforts to apply a somewhat scientific approach to comparing their hiring decisions to the subsequent performance of the candidates they ultimately hire. Here is an article, titled "Google's Secret to Hiring the Best People": https://www.wired.com/2015/04/hire-like-google/
No, it isn't. Their entire argument was predicated on "these companies need to hire the best." So they need to define what "best" means in this context. Cause so far, for the likes of Google, it's "Went to an expensive school, and can do whiteboard problems."
Frankly, the problem is that, ultimately, they want to hire the best people. Most of the time, the best people are sourced from the top-tier schools.
On the other hand, in my experience, they pride themselves on finding great people from outside of that small circle. When they do find such a person, it's not uncommon for he or she to excel.