It should be news to exactly no one that top firms hire from top schools. Research has shown that attending an elite university can make or break a student’s chances of being recruited by the best firms (whether or not that strategy makes sense for firms). But a recent study, by Russell Weinstein of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, found that “top schools” is a less obvious category than it seems — and in some cases students might be better off avoiding the obvious top schools altogether.

The study, currently under review at an academic journal, looked at on-campus recruiting data for 39 prestigious finance and consulting firms at 350 universities, finding that a school’s regional rank is an important and undervalued factor in determining how many firms will recruit there. Conventional wisdom about recruiting often focuses on a school’s national rank, which gets complicated when a region, such as the Northeast, is packed with highly ranked schools. In these regions the best students are divided up among more schools, whereas in regions with fewer top schools the best students are more likely to be found in one place. Since firms tend to recruit where they can find the most candidates, students in regions with many top schools may have a harder time being found.

Which is where regional rank comes in. According to the study, if two universities of similar size are similarly selective, the university with the better regional rank will attract more firms to recruit there, and its graduates will earn more money. In other words, if you want to work at an elite firm, going to Harvard is less important than going to the “Harvard” of your region.

For example, the study compares Texas A&M and Penn State, which are similar in size, selectivity, and SAT scores — but significantly different in selectivity in their regions. Texas A&M is one of the most selective schools in its region, so it is likely to attract many top firms; Penn State, which is less selective than many other schools in Pennsylvania, is unlikely to attract as many firms.

Why not just recruit the best students from all the top schools in Pennsylvania? The answer is simple: Recruiting is really, really expensive. The study reports that a firm’s screening cost per hire can range from $6,900 to $29,000, depending on the school, and can approach mind-boggling amounts for MBA students — as much as $100,000 per hire. Lower-ranked schools may well have great students, but finding them is so expensive that most firms won’t bother. That’s why firms prioritize recruiting at places like Texas A&M, which are more likely to have a high percentage of the top students in the region.

There’s another geographical caveat to the study’s findings, which is that national firms often recruit for their regional locations. For example, the firm’s Southwest office probably hires from schools in the Southwest, which the Northeast office is less likely to do. Students looking to take advantage of regional rank would be helped, Weinstein says, by being flexible about where they live after graduation. If students are open to living in whatever region gives them the best chance of being recruited, they’ll have a greater chance of actually ending up at a top firm. The study notes, however, that regional prestige should matter less for firms with global staffing models. Local clients may prefer consultants from local schools, but clients outside the region may not care.

Weinstein’s study has wide-ranging implications for the discourse around elite firms and who works for them. A job at these firms can be a stepping stone to all kinds of influential positions, and the networks developed there can shape the careers of people in many industries. The study shows that more students can have access to these firms, and that the best career prospects aren’t only in economically vibrant areas like the eastern Amtrak corridor.

In addition, research has found that there are tangible, bottom-line benefits to having a diverse workforce. Since the fight for talent is ongoing and getting fiercer, firms must find ways to expand their talent pools beyond “usual suspect” schools. To name just one area where Weinstein’s findings could make a difference, research has found that high-achieving students from low-income backgrounds are unlikely to apply to selective universities, which of course makes them unlikely to work for elite firms.

There are implications, too, for tuition and education funding policy. Expanding on previous research that graduating from higher-ranked universities increases earnings, Weinstein’s study found that students’ earnings can be quite high if they attend the most selective school in their region. His study also is relevant to student loan interest rates, which may be tied to school quality. And his findings support incentivizing students to attend a school with a high regional rank even if its national rank is lower.

In discussing the study with me over email, Weinstein noted that screening costs, whose impact few studies have quantified, play a huge role in his findings. As firms figure out cheaper ways to fish top students out of a sea of average ones — which Goldman Sachs has begun trying to do — this could all change in a big way. For now, students should remember that there are benefits to being a bigger fish in a smaller pond.