What would be of value is to reduce the importance of these brands in the world at-large. It's not that I give a damn either way about Stanford or what it does. I do think the pedigree whoring that has crept into "tech" has been to its detriment. Twenty years ago, Silicon Valley was much less pedigree-obsessed. You didn't need a Stanford degree to raise capital. These days, we see pedigree being the most important factor in the Valley determining who gets to be a founder and who is merely "Engineer #2" on 0.1% of a $5M company, and we see absolute shit founders like Spiegel and Duplan tapping into that private welfare system. A bit of reversion-to-truth in the power given to brands might be a good thing... not only for the world, but also for elite universities, which would be pushed in the direction of using academic merit again, because the mystique they get in admitting rich idiots and making admissions appear "holistic" would be blown. That would be good for them, because it would force them to admit better students.
Get more than one (1) IITian on a ski/gambling trip, and it's rank and test war stories the whole way. :) (I aced (800) the SAT I math section without studying a single minute, no prep classes... Not a lie.)
One thing I noticed is how anything that disess Ivy/Pac 10 always gets down-voted. Doubting the value of pedigree is tantamount to Siné out of Charlie Hebdo for poking at a certain religion I guess. People might be down-voting because they hate the circumstances and then do that the same as down-voting a video containing something newsworthy but horrible on (video platform).
Perhaps I'll try an evidenced-based comment sometime with generous, neutral language and let the audience make up their mind.
On the plus side of (undergraduate) academia, it signals completion of a large task.. Which has some value.
(Bias: I've worked at a big brand uni on both the research and business sides.)