Good example is South Texas, a T4 school, which is in the top 10 trial advocacy schools. Graduating from South Texas (if you are on the moot court team) gives you the same opportunities in Texas that UT (#15) does.
Mike, your guidance is usually spot-on (e.g., "The most important factor that you should be considering is where you want to work/practice after graduation"), but I disagree with the statement in the box above. Graduating from South Texas, even if you are on the moot court team, will NOT give you the same opportunities in Texas that UT does. For one, most bigger firms (or boutiques that are formed from large-firm partner defections) will not even look at a South Texas grad for an entry-level position unless he/she is within the top 5% of the class. Those firms would, however, be willing to consider a UT grad that was further back in the class rankings.But, I digress. So, back to the OP:
Once again, I stress that litigation skills are learned by doing and watching, not by reading or sitting in a classroom. Litigation skills are most effectively learned on-the-job.
As an aside, I have served as a witness and sat as a judge in two separate regional mock trial competitions. As a witness, I was told by "my attorneys" to make up additional facts that were not in the standard fact pattern given to each school. The reason: To throw the opposing counsel off, thereby, hindering their performance. As a mock Judge and a (real life) district court clerk, I was able to compare the in-court experience the mock litigants received with the in-court experience I have received watching and being involved in numerous trials. Those experiences were worlds apart and I can say with certainty that mock trials, although similar, are not a true reflection of real-life litigation.
My $.02: Get a feel for being a trial/appellate attorney with moot court / mock trial. But, realize that it is not a reflection of reality and don't expect the experience to set you apart from other litigators in the long-run.