Hint: (since I already predict a lack of digestion on this very simple concept)
If you were to IVY for undergrad, you are most likely to STAY in IVY after that (even if you have to bounce to other T1 schools, its still WAY easier to get in with an IVY undergrad-it just is, it just is)
I know I shouldn't engage, since despite your frequent name changes, you still evince a complete inability to stay focused on the issue. But here goes-
1. The OP was asking about college majors. This has nothing to do with that.
2. Correlation is not causation. Law schools do not care where you went to undergraduate. Certain schools (Ivies, for example) are able to attract "better" (as in, more likely to do well on standardized test, for example) applicants. Therefore, when these same undergrads take the LSAT, they are (all things being equal), more likely to do well than a similarly situated person from State U., even assuming no difference in education during the undergraduate period.
It's another example of the Big Fish/Small Pond v. Small Fish/Big Pond scenario. There's no law school that's says, OMG, look at this Harvard UG- we have to accept him despite his 150 LSAT!
That said, there are a (very) few anecdotal examples of a small preference being accorded for certain cases- see, e.g., a triple eagle (BC High School, UG, Law School applicant). And going to Harvard (or another Ivy) may give you collateral benefits (networking, the ability to say, "I went to a school in Boston ... oh, which one? So glad you asked.").