<p>
With the exception of very specialized fields, I would say no. The schools are all strong enough that they each have their own strengths, and none of them (not even Harvard) is stronger than any of the others in every subject. </p>
<p>Take Hopkins, for example. It has top-notch programs in BME, public health, music, and Ivy-level programs in pretty much everything else. Georgetown has SFS and a great nursing program, and the rest of the university is decently strong. Emory has top-notch programs in religion, (biological) anthropology, Middle Eastern studies, and several others. </p>
<p>Remember that a typical undergraduate chooses only ~30-34 courses; most of these colleges offer at least 1000 courses. Needless to say, it’s certainly possible to select courses that would be sufficiently stimulating and challenging.</p>
<p>I disagree with much of cellardweller’s posts, which seem to be written with great vehemence; apparently the honor of the venerable MIT is at stake. A great researcher does not necessarily a good teacher make; would that were true! My own high school math teacher taught math far better than any of the professors I had at Duke. That she lacked a PhD and didn’t teach in a top 20 department was not relevant; she knew the material well and could make it accessible to students. My experience with top researchers is that they are unfortunately prone to pushing their own views in class to the detriment of others; while they are often brilliant and have good points, it’s often good to have a well-rounded view of the subject matter. I also disagree that undergraduates do not compete with graduate students for faculty attention. Any faculty member has a finite amount of time for students on top of time spent teaching, researching, grading, working on committees, etc. While the “neglect” of undergraduates is overstated (indeed, I think it’s often the grad students who suffer), there is no denying that competition for attention usually exists. This is especially true for large departments like biology and political science; it is less true for small departments like geology. </p>
<p>That said, it’s silly to think that less-than-elite colleges will necessarily have better teaching. The function of a research university is the same regardless of level, and many one-step-above-CC universities attract faculty who would be perfectly qualified to teach at Harvard but suffer from the glut in academia; they will want to pursue their research regardless of the level of their current institution. If you want teaching quality, or faculty who teach with a side of research rather than research with a side of teaching, pick a LAC.</p>