Education is often an improvement to our lives and helps enrich our thinking. Yet it should be understood that education and thinking are two different things. Someone could have the right thinking processes that lead to new ideas and discovery while another person with multiple Ph.Ds suffers from chronic limited thinking. Why should companies consider hiring those who have not yet been "indoctrinated" from prestigious backgrounds?
Sometimes we assume that the higher education from the most prestigious schools means that they are some how of higher value than others. "Puppy poo" would be a really great way to describe this bias. What it does mean is that they are highly educated, indoctrinated into a previous method of thinking, and came from fairly wealthy families.
Not much more or less can be derived from that.
Those who "think out of the box" are the one's most valuable to companies. I have seen time and time again companies hire the same executives with the same thought processes from the same type of universities. Guess what it brings them? Lost wealth and declining market share!
Lack of diversity kills off innovation.
These individuals, from the "right" backgrounds and clubs, continuously spew forth the same ideas and thoughts over and over until they jump ship and move onto other companies. Once the bottom falls out they are gone because they have use their income, education, and experience to move on. Their inability to create new comes from their inability to create new ways of thinking and mental synapses that connect new ideas.
Who has value for companies?
It is those who think for themselves and explore new ideas. They are the ones who have unique opinions. Every team should have a percentage of people (say 50%) who are not from the same boring background with the same stale ideas. Except...companies rarely see the value in people of lower indoctrination value because they themselves have been socialized to think "within the box".