You need to keep reading, they explain the mis-aligned incentives of an internal recruiter later:
1. Bring in 10 StanFaceGoogMIT candidates, one gets an offer they don't accept - keep up the good work.
2. Bring in 10 ugly on paper candidates, two get an offer, and one accepts - expect a stern talking to about your performance.
Someone from a no-name school, no relevant/interesting companies, technologies that aren't considered cool at the moment, and from somewhere you consider backwards. Think South Carolina at the moment.
Imagine you're a Stanford alum (even dropout) working at Google. If someone from University of [current bad state] comes across your desk with their main work experience being enterprise consulting in Java, odds are you're going to pass and look at the next person.
Quickly filtering by these "important" things seems to make some sense except for the fact that none of these factors tend to be indicators of success or failure. You may be saving yourself some time but you're missing some good candidates too.
But they wont turn them away, and that's my problem with the article.
I went to an absolute shit school (like, bottom 150 of world ranked schools) an I had interviews that lead to offers with Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Intel, among others, when I graduated. People from my graduating class are working at many of these companies, i.e. with the same background as me.
So clearly it can't be a horrible problem if they seem happy to employ people from my no-name, considered harmful, school.
Who knows, maybe every single one of us got extremely lucky, or some engineering managers just happen to know it doesn't take a M.S. from MIT to know how to write good software.
2. Bring in 10 ugly on paper candidates, two get an offer, and one accepts - expect a stern talking to about your performance.