In my experience, the more advanced the material, the worse the teachers are. Or more precisely, the improvement in teaching does not usually keep up with the increase in difficulty. (There appears to be no correlation, in fact.)
Which implies that the better a university is (the more difficult the material), the more it relies on filtering rather than education.
Which seems to be in line with how the top universities are perceived anyway as selection criteria, primarily places to get a network, rather than places to get an education.
It's neither good nor bad, but it is a little sad :)
---
I do notice that my assumption here is that the more difficult the university is, the better it is. I think this is broadly true, both objectively and subjectively, at least for my purposes.
But it's also the case that (only half-joking) a lot of faculty at research universities regard most undergrads as an inconvenience at best.