Nope, not in the least. With few exceptions for office politics, industry IME tends to be very skills and ability oriented, not focused on pedantic crap like where one went to school. I received my undergrad from a tiny state school that was mostly a retirement gig for engineers who didn't want to retire. With one exception, the staff all were top professionals, had completed Phd's, held extremely high standards, and refused to let TAs teach. They failed the typical "rankings" simply bc they regularly failed students, doing both the students and industry a favor. If you graduated the ME program, you had demonstrated capability not only in understanding basic engineering concepts but also proven ability to use modern design and analytical tools, DFMA, and could even hold your own in the shop bc you had been fabricating lab setups and projects individually throughout. My first position after college was working for a Fortune 50's research dept near a "top 5" engineering school. The research dept's senior manager's reason for hiring me was something that I mistook for common among fresh grads - motivation. I completed a bachelor's in three years, 32 credits beyond the requirement. At the time I knew three CAD packages, two FEAs, and a CFD to a reasonably professional standard and I had enough skill and knowledge otherwise to jump onto his team and hold my own immediately. Needless to say it was a culture shock when I started the local MS program and teaching bc like other "top" schools, the program standards and students there were amazingly lackluster. The required coursework was entirely theoretical so many students learned just enough theory to pass the test and not much otherwise, they didn't have to spend any time in the shop nor did they have to learn anything about modern design or analytical tools. They did everything including capstone projects in large groups which resulted in many graduates who never took a CAD course and had always been the "powerpoint guy" or "report writer" and never did anything requiring thought. They also did not have a time limit on graduation, several students had been full-time for 6+ years and had taken quite a few classes multiple times. IIRC my alma-mater's time limit on full-time students was five years or they were out.
If you want a shock, read how the various magazine "rankings" are completed with a truly open mind then ask yourself if higher GPAs, degree completion rates, reputation among other academics, or the other "standards" used indicate a high quality education or a waste of money. I would argue the "better" rankings mostly indicate a lower standards and a lousy education. To be fair, I have worked with some really good graduates from "top" schools but many more who weren't so no, I wouldn't give you an extra nickel for a MIT, CalTech, Purdue, or otherwise grad, and I have had them all for junior engineers and colleagues.
My daughter does not plan to major in civil. She wants to get a degree in something more "high tech".
I usually counsel younger folks that "tech" and manufacturing tend to be very urban-centric and that they should base their lives around where and the type of lifestyle they want to live, not a job. I thoroughly enjoy product development but as someone happiest in the mountains, I do occasionally consider pivoting to civil or other fields due to location and ease of working for oneself.
