I don't think it's true that your educational background doesn't matter at all.
At least at the tech co where I work in ML, every single one of my peers has a PhD and while I don't, I went to Harvard.
At least at the tech co where I work in ML, every single one of my peers has a PhD and while I don't, I went to Harvard.
But I think it has direct relevance to the GP comment.
Making it impossible for the employer to know that detail would also incentivize all the schools to provide a good education. Also many top universities are mostly about making connections. While their curriculum is usually very hard, this is also reflected in the grades.. people may still pass but their average drops.
In the US it's even worse, because tuition has to be paid. This already filters out many people from going to a "more elite" school.
That said, I can understand the impulse unless you want to be called "Mr. Harvard" every time you do some dumb shit in the office.
So I guess Harvard wins out! In real life, veganism definitely does though :)
For ML? Well, I do know people who have never taken a formal course in anything above calculus who absolutely do apply these techniques properly and are well versed in how they work. But to understand how k-means clustering works, or how to construct a gradient vector... yeah, this requires multivariable calculus and non-linear optimization across systems of equations. And while you don't need to know how the underlying math works to use kmeans or neural nets, the mathematics is a lot closer to your work.
Under these circumstances, I can see why a lot of companies might just start looking for STEM degrees from known programs in a way they don't really with SEs.
To say you only need a certain background to work is horribly misguided. You can be productive in many fields with a wide array of knowledge and education.
I'm not saying a frontend developer can write novel ML algorithms, but surely they can contribute in other capacities (like creating interfaces to work with the novel ML algorithms, which is meaningful in itself and requires new UX paradigms surely).
In the industry, your educational background does matter, especially for the type of firm that asks leetcode questions.
I was not saying you need a certain background to be able to be productive in tech, that is a strawman.
But I would defend that your educational background is a signal (very far from a perfect one) at how productive you would be at knowledge work.
If you have a decade of industry experience, no one cares that you went to some no-name college. It's pretty easy to get callbacks as a senior software developer. But don't mistake that for meaning that educational background is irrelevant. It's far harder to get callbacks if your resume has a bootcamp for education, and no experience. Throw in a felony criminal record, and the job you'll get a Lyft is fixing bicycles for $17/hr. Which isn't a bad job, actually, but it's a far cry from $200k/yr. Meanwhile, someone at an internship at Google or Facebook while working on two degrees from MIT will be making the equivalent to $100k before ever graduating.
Experience matters far more than education, and the software industry isn't some egalitarian ideal, no matter how many millionaires were minted in the 90's and 2000's, and continue to get minted.
The argument that someone could go make their own app and sidestep the need to get a pilot's license is a poor one. If you look at all the shovelware, spyware, and straight up scams on both Apple and Google's app stores, it's clear that there's more to being a successful app developer than writing a good app, and the exceptions there (like Christian Selig) are akin to literal rock stars. Good for them and all, but the rock star's backup singers' names and stories get lost to history, nor do they get the same fame or fortune.
It's like when exceptional black, women candidates are held up as an example of equality. The exceptional candidate isn't the one to ask about, truly exceptional people always bubble up. Where do the average, or lower-than-average candidates (with reasonable educations) end up? How many don't even make it into the field, in a failure-to-launch scenario because they never get that first break that you did?
The Wright brothers never had a pilots license, but who here's heard about Charlie Taylor, their machinist?
That said, in undergrad for ML, I think some of the more important things are giving you a strong basis in linear algebra, vector calculus, and numerical computing - and I certainly got that there.