I'd say it depends on the career path and industry you are referring to.
Yes, better chances in traditional industries (government, public sector) - in the sense that you get your foot in the door more easily than non-scholars. Because that's how they've reviewed candidates in the past, and big systems are slow to change.
No, not better chances in other industries. Nowadays I see a lot of employers hiring based not on your academic success but how you have applied that knowledge. Showing some form of initiative and drive by doing your own projects, stands out a lot more than having a paper A+ stamped with a scholar title.
Of course, it all goes down to how you present it on your resume as well. Highlight what matters (more than being a scholar) - what makes you unique, a must-hire for that specific company. Show your potential fit, not your past credentials.
Food for thought: If you do that and the company still doesn't see value in it, is that the type of company you'd like to work for anyway? :) Employers' hiring priorities say a lot about the culture of the workplace. So you'd have dodged a bullet if you missed out an opportunity that hired only scholars.
I think in general, if scholars seem to earn more, it's not all because of their title, but because they've also likely undergone more training, showed better thinking, or (had the privilege to) experience more than non-scholars. And these are things that anyone, scholar or not, can cultivate too :)
So I'd say - this idea of scholars = better isn't a black-and-white reality. Take what you can learn from this trend, and leave the rest :)
All the best if you're job searching!!
It can definitely be seen in more examples in the public sector than in the private sector. Scholars have a fast-track programme that gets you promoted in a shorter amount of time as compared to fresh grads. And regarding your first question, I guess companies still hold on to the mentality that the alphabets and numbers on your results slip still says it all.
Write your thoughts