(02-07-2019 12:02 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Imagine a large prestigious firm (law, accounting, medical practice, whatever).

Looking to put someone on the partner track considering several candidates that are fairly equal you are better off being the candidate from an Ivy or an elite school in the field than to be from some mid-tier state school.

If you are a rainmaker and play by the rules then the distaste for putting the graduate of a small rural open admission state school can be overcome.

Academics matter, not just prestige, but philosophy you want to hang out with people like you or people who bolster your reputation by association.

But all that can be overlooked if you can make a huge change in your potential partner's bank account.

The key point in your analogy is that all else being equal, academics play an important role.

The point that I’ve been making in this thread is that conferences put together a list of candidates based on their potential to generate revenue for the conference and only then use academics as a way to narrow the pool.

It's a whole bunch of criteria that each conference/group of presidents weight differently. The ACC is going to weigh academics differently than the SBC. Revenue is also going to be weighed differently from conference to conference. Ultimately it's about how many boxes you check.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk