actually, I read through the entire thing, and the points it brings up are pretty valid. It's trying to show that just learning the technical skills (finance, marketing, accounting, etc...) and required classes do not a CEO make. If you're going to a b-school just for those skills, you're probably better off doing the 3-week in house consulting training, your company's leadership development program, or taking some classes at a local school/university.
The article does mention that at the elite schools, the degree still brings lots of salary, career, and promotion possibilities, but mainly because the people who get in are already very top notch, and you make very good connections with your class and the alumni of that school. In the end, I think the technical skills are great to learn, but to really get the most out of b-school, one should focus on the networking, learning the "soft skills" of being a leader (communications, people skills, resolving conflicts, etc...), and gaining as much "real life" experience as possible through competitions, projects, internships, and programs like that.
I believe campuses like Stanford and Haas are adding classes that simulate the "real world" better these days (the article was written in 2002 if I am not mistaken), and I did read an article in 2005 or 2006 in Business Week about B-schools trying to change their curriculum to avoid being "irrelevant". From the infosessions I've seen so far, I think they are doing a much better job at creating real managers than before.
Thus, I've re-confirmed my desire to go for an MBA, as I believe I'm going for pretty good reasons...