Its not. There rejection rate is higher, though. Still, a person who gets into Harvard is more likely to also get into Google than vice versa.
Google gets more applications per open position, so they also have to reject more. Lots of people think "Why not give it a shot and apply at Google." Very few think the same about Harvard. Also, I would say it takes more effort to apply to a university. They will require essays, SAT/GRE and letters of recommendations for a valid application.
I applied to Harvard as a "why not give it a shot?" It involved ticking an additional box on the Common Application and paying an additional $25 or so. I needed the essays, letters of recommendations, SAT, etc. anyway, to apply to other schools. Harvard had no additional requirements besides them. (Amherst and Dartmouth, however, required additional essays. I ended up giving up on the Dartmouth supplement because I couldn't be arsed to finish it, then have them nag me for another 2 months about my uncompleted application before I finally told them that no, I didn't actually want to apply.)
Not really true at all. Having no degree at all may present an obstacle in entering the interview process if you don't have strong experience to make up for it. But once you've entered the process as a candidate, the type or lack of degree will have absolutely no bearing on whether or not you're given an offer. It may be used past the decision phase when the hiring committee is deciding how to level you, but if so that will only be meaningful if they're slotting you for the first two levels or so.
Everything becomes easier with a degree, doubly so with a degree from a top university. But they only use that as a factor in deciding who to interview; all they care about when deciding who to hire is interview performance. Someone without a degree should be optimizing their search by convincing hiring managers or employees to refer them into the process directly, thereby short circuiting the recruiters.
Have you considered the possibility that a degree from a top university could influence an interviewer's report of the candidate's technical proficiency?
During one interview I had at Google, I stumbled when performing addition on base 64 numbers.
Since I don't have a degree, it seems likely that interviewer will write that I have a conceptual deficiency with numeric bases and mathematics.
If I had a degree from CMU and gave an identical performance, they might instead write that I was rusty with numeric bases.
There's also the fact that most of the interviewers have a degree, many from a top 10 university. Hiring people that match their own profile validates their own background which benefits their career, so a self-interested and rational interviewer should rightly tend to give more positive ratings to people with degrees, ideally from institutions similar to theirs.
I think this is relevant at every stage of the interview process. If you sound nervous and don't have a degree, they might think you have a mental disorder, whereas if you have a degree from CMU they might just think that you don't want to disappoint your family.
I feel disadvantaged at every stage of the interview process for not having a degree. I'm sure there's no moment where someone is consciously docking me points or arguing against me with specific reference to the lack of degree. But I do think it's heavily influencing how academic types perceive me, and what they write about me in their report.
This will vary widely based on job function: it may be true for engineers, but it's not true for marketing. From what I hear, at Facebook and google, if you apply for a marketing job, You absolutely don't stand a chance unless you've come from a top 10 school or ivy leage school
Everyone I've talked to in the industry views people with a Masters much less favorably than people with a Bachelors or PhD.
And from experience I can say there is a shockingly high number of people with Masters in Comp Sci churning through the hiring pool who can't write a single line of code or even valid HTML.
I don't know why this is, but I think a Masters is getting a negative reputation to the point that you might consider not listing it on your resume at all in certain cases.
Getting an MS is a sign that the candidate wasn't particularly good before getting one, because of the various reasons people get an MS. And it's not like they became a better developer as a result of getting one.
The way to determine this is by measuring actual performance.
With more information, like why or how they got an MS, the probability distribution changes. My impression is, there's a set of dimwits from a dimwit part of the industry that decide they should get a Master's in order to better their career. As opposed to, say, getting one right after school because you didn't want to enter the real world, or because a 5-year MS seemed like a good idea, or being brainwashed in general about the value of formal schooling.
Don't ask me! I never got a Master's, and if I did get one, it wouldn't be in CS. In general I think work experience would inform your course selection or the decision to get an MS in the first place. That's pretty much the main way it would affect it.
Only true for recent grads (2-3 years after college). Google itself (and ex-googlers) say degree doesn't matter for job applicants with some work experience.
