But idk, I thought the article was reasonable enough in calling for prestige-agnostic measures. Not like the measures in the article will guarantee the flawless hiring loop, but what was off kilter about the rest?
1. Systematic oppression exists but it's not your problem, don't worry about it, colleges should fix it.
2. You shouldn't put much stock in undergrad university ranking when choosing early career candidates.
In my opinion, the former is immoral cowardice and the latter is perfectly true, just trite. God knows why the big companies still work off of school filters, but I think a big part of it is that it's "common knowledge". I guess every argument we add on the pile against that is good, but not when it's based in a fundamentally out-of-whack worldview that sees 2024 as defined by terrible discrimination against the rich and powerful. Broken clocks and all that :)
It also doesn't help that it's all, ultimately, an ad for their services. Their big plan for solving systematic oppression is... to hire them. Which is pretty funny!