I'm always hunting for ways hiring managers to more accurately determine who to hire that DON'T involve the requirement of being a better interviewer.  In the past I've suggested that you should look at obvious traits like obesity and smoking addictions.  I recommended that you look at the credit history of someone to determine if they know how to stay true to their word.

With that in mind, I found the most interesting article the other day about the Ivy League Advantage.  It was the summary of work completed by a young Sociologist from Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management.  She concluded, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".  Here are some of the highlights:

• "Elite professional service employers" rely more on academic pedigree than any other factor. For recruiters, it's prestige that counts, rather than "content" like grades, courses, internships, or other actual performance. That's because if you got into a "super-elite" school -- which essentially means Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Wharton (University of Pennsylvania), and Stanford -- you must be smart.
• Why spend effort looking for "that one needle in the haystack" at a "safety school" like the University of Michigan or, heavens forfend, Bowling Green, when the run-of-the-mill Yalie's still a prince. Even "second-tier" Ivies like Brown, according to Rivera, are suspect for the top firms.
• While going to a super-elite gets your penny loafer in the door, that isn't enough. Rivera says it's leisure pursuits that seal the deal. Employers use these as "valid markers" or "proxies" of a candidate's "social and moral worth," all the more so for time-intensive sports that "resonate with white, upper-middle-class culture." Think lacrosse, squash, crew, and field hockey. Skip football, basketball, and soccer. And no sport at all suggests "nerd," which correlates to future "corporate drone."