>Ten years out, those numbers look more like $250k and $150k.
If there are managers willing to pay an employee 40% more based on an education received a decade prior, there's a huge economic advantage to be had hiring those of "lower pedigree".
If there are managers willing to pay an employee 40% more based on an education received a decade prior, there's a huge economic advantage to be had hiring those of "lower pedigree".
So you wouldn't be necessarily able to save $100k by hiring people without the pedigree, because even though many are just as talented, they're not going to have the highest quality of work experience. There are plenty of people who'd do just fine, even with the lack of good experience, but you have to be able to find them.
These often aren't objectively worth it under the value system of your old career, but they essentially throw a monkey wrench into your career and make anyone reading it go "Huh? Why did they do that, and what does it mean for me and my company if I hire them?" And that, in turn, gives you an ability to reframe your story on your own terms. If you're behind in somebody else's value system, it makes no sense to continue molding your career to their value system. Instead, pick your value system and then seek out positions that play to your strengths.