<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, that was a survey not a scientific study, which is a big difference. </p>
<p>Second, even if it was scientifically performed, you have correlation not causality. That’s a big deal. Think about it: who gets into Ivy League schools? Exceptional students because of intelligence and commitment and students with important connections (children of the wealthy, famous people, etc). Who does well in business? Individuals that are intelligent and committed and/or that have important connections? </p>
<p>What does that mean? People aren’t necessarily successful after college because they go to an Ivy League school; they have a propensity towards success that allows them to attend Ivy League schools and do well after college.</p>
<p>An example: Chelsea Clinton attended Stanford and Oxford. After graduation she gone on to be a highly successful consultant and later hedge fund manager. By all accounts, she has been wildly successful at her age. Would you argue that Stanford caused that success? No. In reality, she has very wealthy and powerful parents, which (in all likelihood) is why she was admitted to Stanford. She has very wealthy and powerful parents, which is why she was hired by the hedge fund (run by major Clinton donors). In reality, she could have attended the University of Arkansas and still have been hired by that hedge fund. </p>
<p>An appropriate study would be to follow admitted Ivy League students that both chose to attend and that chose to attend state schools. Then, controlling for socio economic factors, test whether or not the Ivy League component is statistically significant.</p>