I would say this - and of course it’s my hypothesis:
I would assume that kids from top undergrads dwarf the kids from non-top undergrads - especially at top law schools. don’t know how many attend from each school. But I’d surmise bigger #s come from more difficult to get in undergrad schools. But that’s just because they have more top students; I’m not sure they have an actual advantage.
Why? Because the kid talented enough to get into Harvard - or this student who got into both Oberlin and Penn - and regardless of what they think - Oberlin is not an easy admit (35%) and it’s a very respected school - kids like this student will naturally do better on an LSAT than say the average student at Youngstown State or Fairleigh Dickinson, etc.
However, as we’ve seen - smart kids abound everywhere - because schools pay to get them. No one sees Alabama as an academic powerhouse and yet they have more National Merit Scholars than any school in America…and those great test takers will likely find themselves in top schools.
But as a concentration of students vs. smart kids at Ivies or even an Oberlin - it’s going to be a lot less.
So we don’t know why someone chose Cal State LA or Northridge. Maybe cost, maybe they went for a top major, or maybe they needed to live near home.
But they have the academic chops and test taking ability for Harvard to say - come join us.
So my belief is - a top student is a top student - no matter where they go. They can excel, whether it’s Delta State, Denver, or Dartmouth, etc.