I think the point was; one can cherry-pick with deviation, as they are not _that_ far apart. The parent contends the overstated-ness, not that they are equal.
I'm not cherry-picking anything, I'm just relating what's in the study. And while all state schools may not be equivalent that isn't the point... the point, at least the point I was getting at is this: There is an existence proof (multiple ones, actually) that you don't need to have attended an Ivy League school to become the CEO of an S&P 500 firm.
The bigger point I'd also make, going along with my reply to somebody else about how "the world is a lot bigger than the S&P 500" is that there no reason at all to think that not attending an Ivy League school means you won't be able to have a great career, even being a CEO or whatever. You might just be CEO of a sock manufacturing firm that nobody other than the employees and owners has ever heard of. But that's still a pretty damn good career compared to a lot of the alternatives. :-)
(This is purely a methodological comment; I haven't looked at any data either way. I agree, at least, that going to a state school should not mean that your life is over.)