They compares twenty random faculty members of Carnegie Mellon University with twenty random faculty members of University of Houston. Assuming they didn't cherry pick the two schools, pick random sets of twenty faculty members until they got the numbers they wanted, or include faculty outside of CS (They don't specify.), it's still only two schools. And then they come to the following conclusion.

While this is by no means an exhaustive account, it’s a good anecdotal indication of the elite advantage.

In the next sentence they assert the following.

The majority of computer science programs have a substantially large gap between university and industry demands, trends and technologies.

Then after giving some examples of organizations that attempt to guide the curriculum.

All of these findings beg the larger question: Without an effective feedback loop between industry and brick-and-mortar universities, how well are we preparing our CS undergrads for the industry world with our current syllabus?

What they're really saying is "Without an effective feedback loop between industry and brick-and-mortar universities we can't prepare CS undergrads for the industry world with out current syllabus.", but they phrased it as a question so it wouldn't sound like a drastic claim requiring strong evidence. Rhetorical questions provide an easy way to say something without having to defend it.

I'm too tired to do anymore. If anyone cares, you can look at how they only mention two effected individuals throughout the entire article and how they use data from the University of Washington to make predictions about all schools.