Its not like those schools are demonstrably better its that those schools are exclusive and provide social connections to elite social classes. The whole point of them existing is to be exclusive more than it is to educate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankings_of_universities_in_th...
The networking is not a consideration for the majority of undergrads (aspiring politicians are the obvious exception). Prestige is definitely a factor. But that prestige isn't undeserved.
Global stature is virtually impossible to attain, an unrealistic goal. The world is actually a small place, and global stature is a reasonable goal within one's domain of interest. Both views are indisputably true. One tends to believe the view held by people around you. While it's easy to become a student at an elite school, it's hard to become a professor at an elite school. These are people who have "cracked the code" and naturally see the world as a small place in which one can excel. Most students will never "crack this code", but those in direct contact with good role models are more likely to do so.
The Dale and Krueger study in fact found evidence that there was no statistical difference in lifetime income for ivy league grads vs less elite schools when controlling for factors like sat scores. In fact, they compared people who were accepted but did not go to an ivy league vs those who did go.
Other subsequent studies by others have seemed to bear that out as well.
So I don't even think that too much can be made of the connections one might make at elite universities.
Income is a fuzzy thing, and distinct from opportunities.
I'm always looking for empirical data to bear on a question, so the studies you're mentioning are important. But at the same time I'm sort of suspicious that something's missing from those studies based on prima facie examples I've encountered several times in my life.
Really? Is there a list?
The university has to be in the top 50 of two or more of certain ranking lists (which are specified):
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/may/30/visa-schem...
It’s going to be very funny when they realise that nobody with a Harvard or a ETH Zurich degree is going to spend 3K£ for the privilege of moving to the UK, where they will earn a third of what they would be making home. Then the government will water it down as they did with salary requirements, finally they’ll blame the “talent” shortage on the EU and on millennials eating avocados.
3k visa fee is frankly irrelevant when you consider full cost of moving.
Citation needed. I've seen London attract Europeans but a lot more people are trying to jump from London to the Bay Area than the opposite.
> compared to cultural wasteland of bay area.
Ironically, there are two prominent Bay Area schools listed in the special interest list from the UK government. [0]
[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-potential-in...
Both Stanford and Berkley are isolated from areas they are located in and you have to be student to enjoy cultural life inside. You may visit art gallery/museum in Stanford (it's nice!) but that's pretty much it.
Besides, London has a cultural life that’s not comparable to Paris, Rome or Berlin or even Hamburg (try to get a pint or a coffee at 2AM) and it’s hell if you are not wealthy (try to explain what a section 21 eviction is to a French or a German).
For Google/FB difference in comp by location is there but not as dramatic as difference in average salary for all engineers per location may suggest.
To enjoy social life in Paris, Rome, Berlin or Hamburg you need to speak local language (otherwise you just meet the same expats) which is not problem in London as everyone speaks English.