Though as a reader I start sympathetic to both the thesis (it matches my priors) and the author (always enjoy PG's essays), this struck me as hand-waving. For all the talk of, "I have a lot of data" and "[w]e're just finally able to measure it," there are no supporting numbers, just general impressions. C'mon, give this topic the rigorous Bayesian treatment. How does the population of YC market-successes compare with…
We don't have enough data yet to prove anything by research paper standards, but that doesn't mean I'm saying nothing. We try consciously to ignore where people went to school; that is not standard practice; and moreover this is something I'm claiming we've changed.
That is a completely different statement than showing that it doesn't matter what school you went to. Your article appears to me like it is conflating the two.