> Are you saying (for example) Stanford is ranked higher than Yale for tech companies in the Bay? I feel there is an implication this is somehow unfair which I find ridiculous

Yes.

And yes it is ridiculous because the jobs don't require anything unique from Stanford from employees, and neither should it matter for potential members of the C-Suite or Board, or clients.

The price premium is not because Stanford directly provides something unique. The price premium is because the buyer is predicting the probability of their goals being accomplished to be sufficiently higher due to the Stanford brand name such that it is worth paying a premium for.

Maybe the goal is to increase the probability that an employee is smarter, harder working, more motivated, or just better connected. Perhaps it is true, perhaps it is not, but for whatever reason, people are willing to pay a premium.

the idea is better connected, which factors more for potential investors evaluating the board and c-suite than employees. but it shouldn't weight that heavily there either.

Theoretically, if the premium was not worth it, then companies that were not willing to pay the premium should be able to pump out products/services at a more competitive price than companies that are wasting their money on brand name schools.

But it has been happening for many decades or longer, so I assume there is some utility being gained that is worth it, even if it is just from nepotism.