Whoa! The data in that link floored me. I've revised my opinion from being sure that Cornell is "better" to being unsure about the matter.
For the sake of argument, here's one way in which their metric is flawed. Consider a simple model where you only have two broad areas, systems and theory. IMO, it's indisputable that Cornell is much stronger than UT in theory, and that UT is somewhat stronger than Cornell in systems. Just looking at that, I think it's reasonable to say that Cornell is "better" overall. But, many more systems papers are published than theory papers, so if you use a metric based on papers and citations like they do, UT will dominate, and I just don't that's meaningful. Moreover, even if that's how you decide to define quality, who cares? If you're a theory person, Cornell is the better* place to be regardless of the strength of UT's systems area, and visa versa.
Just to clarify, I wasn't making an argument based on selectively. I don't think there's a total order (or even a rank order, or, for that matter, even a partial order) on students across schools. I suspect it's statistically harder to get a fellowship at UT than it is to "only" get admitted at Cornell, and that UT and Cornell simply use different criteria. I just wanted to point out that even though I should be biased towards UT, I consider Cornell the stronger department. I probably shouldn't try to convince people that the department that I'll probably end up in is weaker than a department I've been rejected from though, so I'll stop here
*and of course this depends on what area you want to work on within theory. If you want to work with formal logic in ACL2, UT is clearly the better place to be, and it doesn't really matter that Cornell is arguably the top place in the entire world to do algorithms.