a better summary and different hypothesis (Score 2, Informative)

A better write up of the article can be found at http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/1121.cf m; Slate's is woefully biased.

And from the actual paper: "Between 1980 and 2001, the percentage of Fortune 100 top executives with Ivy League undergraduate degrees fell by four points (to nearly 30%) while the proportion from public schools increased by 16 points (to 50%)." The paper then goes on to say that this effect may be because there are more people graduating from state schools than ivy league schools (Harvard continues to graduate approximately 1600 kids ech year).

As someone who graduated Harvard recently, I can tell you my hypothesis as to what the difference is. When most of my peers graduated they either went on to become consultants (a nice pay-check + world travel), graduate school (both professional and academic), or investment bankers (really nice pay-check). A few became newspaper reporters, governmental employees, or started working at a large publicly traded corporation, but these things were not the norm.

Also, though there are some rich (and very rich) kids at Harvard, there are also poor and middle class kids from public schools. Harvard's financial aid is good that you can afford to go if you are admitted. They even give you money to buy winter clothes if you can't afford them. But it's so much fun to stereotype, isn't it?