Let's take your points line by line.
Willamette has a huge and powerful reputation in Oregon.
-Oregon is not a prestigious legal market. Either (1) Oregon firms think Willamette is a great school, and love to hire from there, (2) few people who go to top-tier have any desire to work in Oregon, or (3) a combination of both. I would suggest that it is (3), but that (2) is the majority of that balance. Thus, Willamette's reputation may not speak to its quality as a quality law school.
Several US Senators, Reps, Federal Court Judges, and 2 current Oregon Supreme Court Justices are alumni.
-Have you seen the bull that goes on in Congress? Seriously, though, I'm sure that those Senators and Reps represent Oregon, so it is not surprising that they went to an Oregon school. More to the point, a Senate seat does not a good lawyer make.
Willamette has wonderful intern/externship opportunities with county/state/and large private firms.
-Based on what criteria? I need some proof/analysis here.
Their ADR program is ranked 6th in the nation.
-Do you think that top law firms are breaking down Willamette's collective door to get at those students who took ADR classes?
Oh, and did I mention that they are the oldest university west of the Mississippi.
-Age does not a great institution make.
Their facaulty[sic] are graduates of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and so on and most have actually practiced law.
-Everyone's professors are from top law schools. How many professors-at your school and otherwise-went to Willamette, though. That might be one indicator of the quality of scholars a school produces.
Yet, I have had several people on boards look at the tier rating and urge me to look at other schools. I am wondering why that is?
-Willamette's median LSAT is 157, median GPA is 3.23. Boalt's median LSAT is 166, median GPA is 3.79. If I were an employer, I'm going to think (rightly) that Boalt's students are more intelligent. More intelligent students means better and more intellectually challenging class discussion. Exposure to this discussion makes better lawyers. As an employer, I would want those better lawyers.
In addition, several posters have turned their noses up at Cooley and other schools in the T4 ranking.
-See the discussion above.
I guess my point is that the law is a competitive occupation and it is very elite. There are limited seats available, with only about what 190 law schools in the nation. Many people never make it into law school because they cannot get accepted. So why the snobbery?
-Contrary to what you may think, the employment market is flooded with lawyers. That means only the best of the best and those at top-10 schools will get anything that would approach a coveted legal jobs. That may not apply to you. But getting a decent (whatever that means) job may not be as easy as you think. And most people are unsure about desired area or location of practice when they enter law school. Going to a better law school will give you more options. There are 7 Willamette alums in Chicago; 5 of those are solos or not practicing. That says that Willamette is not a portable degree (whereas you find lawyers from Michigan all over the country). You may want to stay in Oregon forever, but you may also not have a choice if you want to continue to practice law.
I actually chose Willamette over a Tier 1 school. Why many have asked? Because I am a single mom and I need help with my daughter. My family is here, not in Pennsylvania. My daughter comes first. And frankly, I have no intentions of leaving the Pacific Northwest, so it makes sense to go to a regional school.
-See above, and hope that, in order to care for your daughter, you never have to leave Oregon.
Anyway, can someone explain the snobbery to me?
-Does that make the conundrum more transparent?