That's never going to work for specialized jobs. If you need a chemical engineer, than you need a chemical engineer.
But I think this is a very good idea for all of those jobs that just say "4 year degree required" without any specialty. Honestly, I don't understand how such postings aren't already illegal under structural discrimination.
Whether college is required at all is also an interesting discussion.
You get a degree. You can prove that you got the degree from an accredited university, if that university is providing some cryptographic form of that degree, without revealing the name of that university.
This only works if multiple universities sign on to a ZKP scheme, because (obviously) if only a single university did this you would know which university it was.
Especially with affirmative action, it's way harder for a White or Asian male to get a spot at some universities.
Sorry if I was unclear, I agree. My point was there is a difference between good state schools and random schools. The latter aren't bad. They just take vetting, as there's a greater you-get-what-you-put-in dynamic at play.
Not always easy to do.
That's part of the reason why school name matters a lot more for MBAs than software developers.
I've seen a huge variance in MBA-graduate quality between schools, to the point that if you're not graduating from one of the top schools I question the value of not only the degree but the candidate for failing to see that. As for undergraduates, the value the top schools deliver is consistency more than quality--you're unlikely to be horribly embarrassed by the Stanford or Georgia Tech grade in a way you are one out of ASU.
Nobody has time for that. Not comprehensively, except for very senior hires or limited-scope roles.