They have a perfect right to use educational background as a filter. But that's not the issue here.
If that's the filter they want to use -- the time to apply it is before inviting the candidate to take 3 days out of his/her life to fly across the country for an interview. If it's such a huge "ding" for them that a candidate doesn't come from a certain set of preferred schools -- fine, don't invite them for an interview. It's really quite simple.
Of it's a "ding", but they want to give the candidate a "shot" -- that's fine too, but there's no need to blatantly neg the candidate right to their face. It serves no purpose; it's just uncivil and unprofessional. (No purpose, that is, other than to give the interviewer an ego rush, and thereby provide a temporary defense of sorts against their own very deeply rooted insecurities. That, and to basically deep-six the candidate's performance, and nullify whatever enthusiasm they might have had for Airbnb during the rest of the, by that point, manifestly pointless "interview").
And the fact that such allegedly highly educated people would so quickly resort to numbskull behavior like this suggests that maybe's it's not such a good filter, after all.
This x1000. Well said. I've gone through the same thing: at one place, for the third(!) onsite, I got to talk to the CEO, who said, "Well why the heck should I hire you, given that [part of history]?!" -- something that had been discussed with each interviewer over the previous two rounds. I wanted to find a diplomatic way to say, "I don't know if you're just probing my ability to sell myself, but if not, and this was such a dealbreaker for you, it might have been a good idea to resolve that before taking me through three onsites, you know?"
If that [part of history] was a brush with law, taking time out to deal with personal problems, or being caught up in a failed business endeavor of some sort -- you can always spin it out as a learning experience, and say some variation of "It wasn't the best choice make, but I think that going through it made me a better, more mature person."
But not knowing what exactly that [part of history] was about, of course we can only speculate.
Nothing at all like that, and I had no problem applying anywhere else. The point is, they shouldn't send you through interviews when they can know they're not going to hire you anyway. (In the context, it seemed like the CEO was just trying to make himself useful by feeling out each candidate for what his gut told him. Whenever I asked him to clarify a question, he would refuse to explain at all, and just say "whatever you interpret that to mean".)
Hmm -- I'm not you, and I wasn't there. But something tells me you're looking at this (retroactively) as a "glass half-empty" thing. As in: "they must have seen some big negatives in me, otherwise they wouldn't have asked that question, about [past history]."
Whereas you could have also looked at it this way: "They must have seen some big positives in me, being as they asked me to come talk to them, knowing full well about [past history]." You know, the glass half-full route.
You're talking about this like I'm some charity case. Again, I don't have trouble finding interest or applying elsewhere and I don't depend on anyone seeing enough "goods" to take a chance on some bum.
If that's the filter they want to use -- the time to apply it is before inviting the candidate to take 3 days out of his/her life to fly across the country for an interview. If it's such a huge "ding" for them that a candidate doesn't come from a certain set of preferred schools -- fine, don't invite them for an interview. It's really quite simple.
Of it's a "ding", but they want to give the candidate a "shot" -- that's fine too, but there's no need to blatantly neg the candidate right to their face. It serves no purpose; it's just uncivil and unprofessional. (No purpose, that is, other than to give the interviewer an ego rush, and thereby provide a temporary defense of sorts against their own very deeply rooted insecurities. That, and to basically deep-six the candidate's performance, and nullify whatever enthusiasm they might have had for Airbnb during the rest of the, by that point, manifestly pointless "interview").
And the fact that such allegedly highly educated people would so quickly resort to numbskull behavior like this suggests that maybe's it's not such a good filter, after all.