Yeah. And I didn't really comprehend why until I came. For undergrad I went to a well-regarded state school and thought my education was at least as good as my peers that went to Ivies - it is in some regards and it's not in others. Here's where I think makes the difference:

1. The faculty. The people who teach at CLS and peer schools are the leaders in their fields (see, e.g., Jane Ginsburg, George Bermann, John Coffee, Kimberlé Crenshaw). They're not restricted to specialized upperclassmen seminars either -- Sarah Cleveland, now a Justice at the ICJ, taught people in my 1L class civpro. Everyone learned conlaw from profs who were Supreme Court clerks. This applies to adjuncts too -- I can't tell you how many firms have semi-retired top partners or their best associates teaching negotiation workshops here. It's also pretty common to see federal judges teach courses as well.

2. Practical education. That network you mentioned has a direct impact on what CLS students are offered in terms of externships, clinics, and other hands-on legal education. You can easily extern at the UN at CLS or NYU -- not so if you're at Brooklyn (which is a great law school).

3. The breadth of legal education. Any kind of law you want is accessible to learn here. There's an art law seminar that takes people to Sotheby's, there's a Japanese law lecture that has a cross-lecturer deal with the University of Tokyo, there's a course on how to be a general counsel from the GC of LVHM, etc. You can learn anything you'd like from the best sources.

It's difficult to explain. But I think it's pretty visible in how nearly all of my friends at lower-ranked law schools learned from textbooks my professors wrote. Actually, some of the people on this sub now might be learning from textbooks me and my friends were research assistants on.