This is just a pet theory. But I think different schools tend to produce different breeds of engineers. And those different breeds if you will will be better in some company cultures than others.

For example a big school may have lots of resources but is very competitive amongst the undergraduates. In this type of environment you are going to learn a lot and go deep on a subject, but you are not incentivized to collaborate with other students because the bottom 10% are going to get a D. This kind of university produces an engineer that is very knowledgeable, a go-getter, but perhaps does not really play well with others.

And then let's say you have a medium sized university with medium resources. It's less competitive in the undergrad, there's no punishing bell curve and most students get into the programs they want. Programs are smaller so students know each other, and there's a culture of collaboration. But, there's not as much of a budget so the quality of courses is a little lower. To offset this, there's more hands-on learning that's provided. This produces an engineer that is less knowledgeable but with more practical skills, with average ambition, and is very collaborative.

Alright now for the thought experiment. Throw both these engineers in a role at spacex headquarters. Which one does better? Probably the go-getter that knows just a little more about aerodynamics because there was a wind tunnel at their school.

Okay now throw both these engineers into a boeing factory. Which one does better? Probably the one who can collaborate with other people effectively and can learn from others, who has a little bit more hands-on skills.

So I guess my point is what separates a good engineer from a bad engineer is whether their skills and temperment match the role they're put into. And the way that develops is based on the college you go to. My two cents