| Actually if there are certain schools that have particularly strong placement at MBA programs that would suggest (according to your line of reasoning) that they are producing alumni that are successful in the workplace because they are earning spots at top b-schools (and great work experience is more important than academic factors). Your conclusion doesn't follow.
To pretend like there is no significant relationship though between "matriculation patterns" and "placement strength" is laughable.
And schools with high selectivity do not always perform well (that is sort of the point of the WSJ study and my study, actually). US News selectivity rating, as a proxy for selectivity, does not equal strong professional school placement. WUSTL's selectivity ranking is very high relative to its performance as is the case with other schools like: Caltech, Emory, U Notre Dame, Tufts, Vanderbilt, Harvey Mudd, Haverford, Claremont McKenna, Bowdoin, Davidson, W&L, Carleton, Hamilton, and Carnegie Mellon U.
To lump all of those under-performing schools and use the excuse that they are just interested in pursuing other routes needs evidence to support it not just an assumption. You shouldn't just assume self-selection without some evidence to suggest that that is occurring. It seems more reasonable to consider these schools not doing as great of a job in getting students admitted to top professional schools.
There are places where people post their stats and their admissions decisions to professional schools (I won't point them out) but a quick screening shows that schools of equal selectivity do not in many cases give graduates the same chances of admission to top JD/MBA/MD programs given that they have the same stats. |