In law, there are places where having a degree from the "right" school makes a big difference. I went to an Ivy undergrad and the UC system for law school, mainly for financial reasons. The vast majority of people in my law school class went to Ivies or Stanford. There were some that did their undergrad in the UC system, one from Notre Dame, and one from Georgetown that I recall. There were some diversity students who went to some lower tier schools.
After law school, I returned to the east coast and worked at large NY and DC law firms. I interviewed a lot of people when I was an associate. I can't remember anyone who I interviewed for an associate position who was not from the top 5 law schools, most went to Harvard. Also, almost all had clerked for federal judges -- another place where pedigree matters. These places were obsessed with where you went to school. The few people who worked there who did not have the right academic pedigree (usually an associate who came with a partner they wanted from another firm) never made it to partner. A lot of them were told up front that they were not on the partner track. One man was a favorite of a large oil company client -- they eventually made him "of counsel" to appease the client. These people were told by the managing partner not to display their diplomas from these "lesser" schools in their office. I worked with many of these people and could not see any difference in the quality of their work. I remember one woman who came with a judge that they hired. She was a phenomenal writer, super smart, efficient and willing to bill 250+ hours per month. I recall a partner making disparaging remarks about where she went to school and how they would never let her be anything more than a contract attorney. She eventually left the firm and, last I heard, is a professional clerk for a federal court judge.
I've been out of the legal profession for over ten years now. I can't imagine that much has changed.
