Some of the arguments on here remind me of the debates about death statistics.
Whilst it is obvious from data and trend analysis that poverty and smoking both contribute to earlier death, you’ll always get somebody leaping in to claim that their granny lived in a coal scuttle in Middlesbrough and smoked 60 a day and yet lived until she was 110, so the data must be wrong, so there.
Yes, it is possible that somebody studying law at Greenwich or Oldham or Edge Hill or Wolverhampton might become a KC one day, just like somebody studying law at Oxford might, but it’s just not very likely, is it?
It’s possible that somebody studying a mediocre subject at a low-ranked university might end up with a prestigious and lucrative career, but it’s just not very likely, is it?
Some employers might not care about who issues a degree, but plenty do. Those who don’t care are those keen to recruit graduates trained in vocational subjects: a PP mentions the NHS. Of course they don’t care: they are desperate for nursing and AHP staff. How does that help the OP, whose daughter is considering a degree in geography and wondering whether the university at which she studies makes a difference to future career outcomes?
There are lots of people working in higher education with a vested interest in claiming that all degree-awarding institutions might turn out graduates who will walk into well-paid careers. Nobody wants to admit that certain universities and certain subjects make that result far more likely.