You're trying to argue that the reason that there are so many top-tier grads in positions of power is that top-tier schools are disproportionately graduating ta

You're trying to argue that the reason that there are so many top-tier grads in positions of power is that top-tier schools are disproportionately graduating talented people. But then you say this: "What the study I linked suggests is that if the brilliant student was capable of getting into MIT, regardless of whether or not they did get accepted, they are likely to have a similar outcome to the ones who ended up going to MIT." If this is true, then it implies that the top schools are simply very good at monopolizing the world's intellectual talent. So which seems more likely to you: that the top-tier universities monopolize the world's intellectual talent, or that we've set up a system that systematically rewards the kind of people who get to go to top-tier schools? Given your previous caveats about minorities and middle-class kids, I think you generally agree with my premise, and now you're arguing just to argue.