This coincidentally depresses the marketability (for a certain class of job) of older workers and demographics less likely to achieve a degree from a top N computer science program.
Certainly you could read between the lines and say that observably favoring e.g. Stanford 2012 CS majors effectively disadvantages some protected minorities (age, gender, race). By placing the emphasis on a particular credential rather than on demographics a hiring company gets a level of plausible deniability from such claims.
Disclaimer: I have an MSci in CS and I'm only 30, so I'm not too worried about the things implied above. Yet.
If those older workers and others are equally or more skilled than the younger ones implied by your question, smart companies will realize the discrepancy and hire them.
In addition, if older workers know that firms place a "high value on undergraduate-level CS theory," they should probably spend some time learning. . . undergraduate-level CS theory.
You can in fact see this in action in other areas—for example: http://www.economist.com/node/17311877 .
Personally, I find it terribly unlikely that any such filtering is intentional on any level.
- What little experience they have is effectively all relevant to the job and hence easier to justify paying for. If a neophyte can do 80% of a veteran's work for 50% of the pay, it's a tempting tradeoff. A software veteran's second decade of experience may not be worth the increased sticker price if you're asking them to perform low- and mid-level tasks.
- They are less likely to have personal entanglements (kids, family, medical).
- They are an easily appraised and substituted commodity: standard salary scales apply.
- They are less likely to know their market value and hence less likely to negotiate for increased compensation or time off.
I'm far from an expert, but I have had to take classes in Employment Law and interviewing practices. This is not the kind of thing they would forget to mention!
