Lloyd Blankfein, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, told the Big Shot podcast two weeks ago that the very best students at large public universities can match or exceed the top students from Ivy League schools. He pointed to colleagues who attended non‑Ivy institutions — Gary Cohn (American University) and David Solomon (Hamilton College) — to illustrate that elite talent is not confined to selective private colleges. Blankfein argued that when you compare the absolute top of a much larger cohort — “the tippy, tippy top” — the advantage associated with Ivy prestige largely disappears. His comments arrive amid widening debate about the value of a college degree as AI reshapes entry‑level work and employers rethink recruitment signals.
Key Takeaways
- Blankfein said top students at the University of Minnesota (he referenced a “top of 50,000” pool) can be as strong as Harvard’s best (he referenced Harvard’s “top of 1,600”), arguing scale matters when judging elite performers.
- He noted notable Goldman executives who attended non‑Ivy schools: Gary Cohn (American University) and David Solomon (Hamilton College), underscoring career paths outside the Ivy pipeline.
- Harvard has acknowledged grade inflation: about 60% of grades are A’s today, up from ~40% a decade ago and under 25% twenty years ago, raising questions about academic rigor.
- A 2025 recruiting survey cited in reporting found 26% of firms recruit from a narrow set of schools, up from 17% in 2022 — shifting selection toward prestige or geographic convenience.
- Blankfein emphasized pre‑college context: students from less advantaged backgrounds often face more obstacles, so rising to the top at a large public university can signal resilience and ability.
Background
Wall Street hiring has long gravitated toward elite colleges, with firms using institutional prestige as a shortcut for perceived ability and cultural fit. Ivy League and similar selective institutions produce a disproportionate share of recruits for investment banking, consulting, and senior executive pipelines because of networks, on‑campus access, and historical hiring patterns. Large public universities, by contrast, enroll far larger and more socioeconomically diverse student bodies; their high performers face a different set of selection dynamics and often fewer institutional advantages.
In recent years two forces have complicated traditional hiring signals. First, employers have flagged concerns about grade inflation at top universities, which can blur academic differentiation. Second, AI tools that automate résumé writing and parts of the application process have made many early‑career submissions more homogeneous, prompting some recruiters to rely more heavily on school brand and proximity to headquarters. That combination is fueling debates about meritocracy, access, and whether recruiters should broaden their sourcing strategies.
Main Event
On the Big Shot podcast, Blankfein — himself a Harvard alumnus — described how Goldman hires from a wide mix of colleges and does not equate degree prestige with guaranteed superiority. He used colleagues’ educational backgrounds as concrete examples that high performance and leadership can emerge from less storied schools. Blankfein explicitly contrasted the selective cohort sizes, saying being the top student out of tens of thousands at a large public university can be at least as informative about talent as being top in a much smaller elite cohort.
He also highlighted the role of pre‑college advantages. Students who come from elite prep schools or who are situated within longstanding feeder networks often have a smoother path into the Ivy League, which he described metaphorically as “the current’s going with you.” By contrast, students who reach the top at larger publics frequently do so after overcoming greater obstacles, a factor Blankfein suggested should carry weight in talent evaluation.
The remarks surfaced alongside broader discussions about higher education’s return on investment. Reporting referenced rising interest in skilled trades, which have remained more insulated from AI and often do not require large student loans, and pointed to shifting student and employer behavior as labor markets adapt to automation. These dynamics frame why Blankfein’s comments on comparative meritocracy have relevance beyond anecdotes about individual executives.
Analysis & Implications
Blankfein’s central claim — that the highest achievers from very large universities can rival those from elite small cohorts — challenges recruiters who use institutional prestige as a primary filter. If employers continue to constrict their campus recruiting to a narrowing set of schools (the 2025 survey cited a rise to 26% from 17% in 2022), they risk missing candidates who demonstrate comparable or superior performance under different constraints. That is consequential for upward mobility and for firms seeking diverse skills and perspectives.
The growing use of AI in hiring and in coursework weakens traditional signals. AI‑generated résumés and assignments can make early applications look similar, increasing reliance on proxies like school name and geographic convenience. At the same time, grade inflation at some elite institutions may reduce the signal value of transcript GPA. Together these trends push employers toward simpler heuristics unless they invest in deeper, skills‑based evaluation methods.
For students the practical takeaway is strategic: attending an institution where you can be among the very top of your class may yield stronger career returns than attending a more prestigious school where you risk being in the middle or bottom of the cohort. This echoes recent public advice from commentators who urge applicants to consider fit and relative standing, not only brand. Policy implications include the need for employers to broaden recruiting pipelines and for universities to safeguard rigorous assessment so grades retain meaning in labor markets.
Comparison & Data
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Harvard A grades (approx.) | ~60% now; ~40% a decade ago; <25% twenty years ago |
| Firms recruiting narrowly (Veris Insights) | 26% in 2025 vs 17% in 2022 |
These figures summarize reporting on grade distribution and recruiting patterns cited in the original conversation and subsequent coverage. The rise in firms concentrating recruiting at fewer schools suggests a retrenchment toward familiar pipelines, even as arguments grow for skills‑based hiring. The Harvard grade statistics have been publicly acknowledged by the institution and are widely discussed as evidence of widespread grade inflation.
Reactions & Quotes
Industry response has been mixed: some recruiters say prestige still simplifies selection under time pressure, while others argue for process changes to uncover talent from broader pools.
“If you look at the tippy, tippy top of a large university versus an elite small one, I’d say they’re at least as good, maybe better.”
Lloyd Blankfein (former Goldman Sachs CEO)
This short quote captures Blankfein’s central comparative point; he used cohort size to explain why top performers from large publics deserve equal consideration.
“Everyone’s not starting from the same place if some people have access to on‑campus engagement and some don’t.”
Chelsea Schein, Veris Insights (research executive)
Schein’s observation, cited in reporting, frames why on‑campus recruiting advantages can perpetuate unequal starting points for applicants and why firms’ narrowing of school lists matters.
“You should go to Harvard if you think you can be in the top quarter of your class at Harvard.”
Malcolm Gladwell (author/commentator)
Gladwell’s advice — referenced in recent coverage — reinforces the practical student perspective: relative standing within a cohort can be more important for success than attending the most prestigious school possible.
Unconfirmed
- Exact enrollment comparison figures Blankfein used (e.g., “50,000” v. “1,600”) were offered as illustrative and may not correspond to current official full‑time undergraduate headcounts for the named institutions.
- The extent to which AI grading is universally applied across departments and institutions varies; some reports cite pilot uses while others remain anecdotal.
- Recruiting share shifts (26% vs 17%) are drawn from reporting that summarizes a Veris Insights survey; firm‑level practices may differ from the survey aggregate.
Bottom Line
Blankfein’s remarks challenge a simple equation of institutional prestige with top individual ability, arguing that the very best students from large public universities can match or surpass their Ivy League counterparts. That assertion has practical implications for recruiters, students, and higher education leaders as AI, grade inflation, and constrained recruiting change how talent is discovered and assessed.
For employers, the lesson is to consider processes that look beyond brand as a proxy for competence; for students, it is to prioritize environments where they can excel relative to peers. Policymakers and educators should also note that widening talent pipelines and preserving assessment rigor will help ensure hiring decisions reflect actual ability, not only institutional signals.
Sources
- Fortune — media report summarizing the Big Shot podcast interview and related coverage