According to a Slate article, which examines a study from the University of Pennsylvania, major U.S. companies aren't nearly as full of Ivy as they were 25 years ago. The study peeked at the degrees of the top 10 officers at Fortune 100 corporations and found the following:

Between 1980 and 2001, the percentage of top executives whose undergraduate degrees came from Ivy League schools fell by nearly a third from 14 percent to 10 percent. Others who paid through the nose for their sheepskins also lost ground. The percentage of top execs who attended private non-Ivy schools (Williams College, Notre Dame, Stanford, etc.) fell from 54 percent in 1980 to 42 percent in 2001. Meanwhile, the proportion of those who attended public universities soared from 32 percent to 48 percent. A similar dynamic was seen in graduate degrees as well: far fewer on a percentage basis from Ivy League schools and far more on a percentage basis from public universities.The Slate author offers a few good guesses about this phenomenon. First, he says, it's a numbers game---state universities pump out more graduates than do Ivies, so the law of averages might favor the publics. Second, the Ivies attract rich kids who don't need to pursue corporate careers or simply chase money. And third, which kind of contradicts point two, the author contends that top Ivy grads might eschew the Fortune 100 in favor of well-paying consulting jobs or positions with investment banking or venture capital firms.

Consider my bias, but I'd still opt for the Ivy sheepskin, regardless of future career choices, especially if my financial aid package were attractive. Why? How about a new law of averages: While the top students at flagships are as bright as the best Ivy students, there's a wider range of talent at the publics. The median Ivy student, I'll posit, is far more accomplished than the median state student. In other words, brighter peers, more competition, better preparation.

Oh, and that prestige thing.