Sort of short response. To change perceptions, you need to overcome bias. For that, you need, among other things, metrics.

Bias: "Good" school + "Good" grades + Law review = high future performance.

History: "That is who we have always hired, and we have done well." ... https://twitter.com/Clevy_Law/status/1300115977997344768

To counter (again, among other things) you need metrics to show that the bias is faulty and how.

Challenges: We really don't know what it takes to "do well" in, e.g., Big Law (or what it will take). What does "do well" (now or in future) mean? We also don't have ...

ways to assess whatever criteria = "do well". And, it is very likely we don't train prospective lawyers on at least some of those criteria. And, we really need to forecast what criteria will be required in, say, 10 years and train for those.

Let's assume we get to those ...

criteria and agree to train for them. Do law profs today have the backgrounds to do that training? If not (probable) we need to re-tool law schools. We need to set metrics to see if our training is successful and, long-term, if we achieved our objectives.

Recognize that ...

all along the pipeline we are aiming at a moving target. We also need commitment from several levels in the pipeline over a long period.

Could it be done? Sure. But we are talking about a sustained effort over a long period in a profession that is highly transactional.