Well, you can't make that claim based on anything other than a generic application of statistics/probability ("given that there are X amount of slots at School A, and Y amount of slots at School B, they're more likely to go to School B" type of analysis), which isn't very relevant. It doesn't take inherent individual abilities, opportunities or other advantages into consideration.
It's highly unlikely any particular individual goes to either of those specific schools (MIT or UMass-Dartmouth), but if you meant to convey schools like them, well, based on their current level of achievement/inherent intelligence, it's more likely they go to an MIT-level school than one of the public bottom feeders, like UMass-Dartmouth. However, given how bad schools like UMass-Dartmouth are (if you had used UMass-Amherst, you would have a better argument), and how competitive admissions at schools like MIT are, it's not extremely likely they go to either "type" of school. Both my boys are at the top of standardized testing, and academic performance in their schools, and they have an inherent aptitude for, and appreciation for, learning (they're self-motivated and naturally inquisitive/analytical ... mommy and daddy aren't pushing them, and they aren't spending vast amounts of time and energy trying to achieve what they've achieved), so I'd place their odds at "better than most."
But your point that PSU will never be compared to MIT or Harvard is ... well ... missing the point. A PSU Schreyers college experience, for example, could be roughly equivalent to a MIT or Harvard experience, or, at least, a close enough experience as to be extremely attractive for those who didn't get into MIT or Harvard, or who can't attend those schools for whatever reason (monetary issues, etc.).
And those in charge of PSU should be making every effort to maximize their student's return on educational investment, rather than directing effort toward righting some wrong from the past, which does nothing to benefit future students.
