not Demo, but the short and always correct answer is that Law School adcoms are fixated on rankings. And the primary driver of rankings is GPA & LSAT. Period. There are no adjustments for major rigor in rankings. So, in that sense it is irrelevant.
OTOH, a rigorous major can be a plus factor when comparing students of similar stats (GPA & LSAT). A hard physical science major can also be a plus factor for a prospie that wants to do IP law. (such jobs are easier to obtain and that looks good on the LS rankings.)
But those are only plus factors on the margin. No LS is gonna say, a 3.0 Engineering major is better for us than a 3.4 Hume/Lit major. Just ain’t so.
The vast majority of matriculants are thinking the same. By definition, most of them will be incorrect. To be realistic, you should plan on graduating with median stats. And then, what can you do from there?
btw: many lower law schools (not T14) play games with their merit money students in that they put them all in the same sections, where they are guaranteed to be less than stellar bcos of the forced curve, by section. Then, the LS requires a B+ say, to keep continue the scholarship. By definition, half of those scholarship students in Yr 1 will be SOL in year 2. (Dunno about Brooklyn or NYLS, but just a fair warning.)