I mean why have a lot of my favourite business people or business thinkers who inspire me in some way, either studied or taught at HBS? Clayton Christensen, Bill Poorvu, Barry Sternlicht, Jamie Dimon, Sangu Delle and a few others I've forgotten.
I know about the signal theory. Non-textbook definition: the idea that the school you go to sends a signal about your capability to potential employers. Or the fact that you even get through university, submitting all your assignments on time sends a signal that you can conform to a work environment and complete assigned tasks. The better the perception of your school, the stronger the signal you send. Based on the fact that a few people from a specific university have achieved tremendous things, outsiders tend to assume everyone who attends the same school is capable of achieving similar feats. Almost all the French Presidents in the last 20 years or so have attended Sciences Po Paris and then Ecole Nationale d'Administration (similar to Harvard Kennedy School). Sarkozy's story is slight different. In England, A LOT of Prime Ministers have studied Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Oxford. Now there are a lot of other factors that influence people's outcomes in life. What I wonder is why we assume certain schools are the best places to go to achieve certain career outcomes. Especially, when we know there are hundreds or perhaps thousands of others from those schools with different definitions of success, who haven't achieved the things people we may look up to have.
Also, these schools are highly selective. They select people who are already motivated to change the world. So do the schools make them or do they make the school? Stupid question but I think it's worth probing. Would a students outcomes in life be drastically different if they studied PPE at Durham instead of Oxford? Should it be so?
Back to HBS, is there something special about that water there or ?