I know that if I were making hiring decisions, I'd probably hire the kid from the higher-ranked school even over someone I know well.
In the immortal words of TLC: "free your mind, don't be so shallow!" You'd hire someone essentially on the basis of one test he took before ever going to law school. No doubt, many graduates of top schools are quite smart. But so is most everyone else. Are you more stupid than most T14 students because you're a mere T25 kid? The system is what it is. And I understand that you need to play by its rules. But here you're saying that you would perpetuate prestige whoring propagated by some third tier magazine.
Let me tell you how I will make hiring decisions. I will invite applicants over for interviews on the basis of class rank, publications, experience etc. That's normal so far. Then I'll give them an assignment that a partner at the firm has already just completed. I will give the applicants 24 hours to finish the memo. Then compare results to the model answer provided by the partner, and make cuts. Then I'll have the survivors come in again, and I'll tell them they have to do some group project. I won't assign groups. I'll let them work it out. Then I grade the group work.
Cut 1 = normal GPA etc
Cut 2 = individual legal skill
Cut 3 = interpersonal and teamwork skills
My way is better than your way. If Harvard is really better, the Harvard kids get hired. If not, whatever.