Some of it certainly depends on the teacher, but I think it is the syllabus which is causing the damage. I can honestly say, in my experience, that LAMDA students seem to be focused in completely the wrong areas.
In order to get higher marks, students must inevitably jump through certain assessment hoops, which clearly results in the effort made in the outward appearance of the performance, rather than the heart of it. You get derivative, imitative pieces, crafted to tick the boxes.
A lot of the problem could stem from working alone, rather than interacting with others within the drama. Monologues
I like gutsy, rough and immediate performances. I like honest, organic and natural performances. You can't achieve this when you are concentrating on a choreographed monologue.
If you can recognise a LAMDA student from their performances (and I reckon a number of us here can) then that means it's not good acting, but standardised, mannered behaviour.
Back to the OP- It's a tough question, whether to mention it or not- In answer, I believe your performance should really speak for itself, regardless of qualifications. Some people may be impressed by a distinction in drama. However, going by own experience only, seeing people hand me their LAMDA distinctions, followed by a plastic performance, only serves to highlight the discrepancy.
So no, don't mention it IMO... but your casting panel will probably be able to tell anyway, unless you are a genuinely good actor who is able to see beyond standardised matrix assessment criteria
Sorry to be so blunt, I hope it helps
Steve