There’s no such a thing as a representative MIT student, or a representative GT student, or a representative student of any school. It’s much more helpful to think in terms of distributions of the abilities of their students.
A college designs its curriculum (think bare minimum) and its courses to accommodate this distribution. It wants to fail as few of its students as possible while providing oppurtunities for its ablest students. The distribution at GT will be broader and more dispersed than the one at MIT, especially due to the much longer left tail of its distribution. At a college where this distribution is broader, it has to offer more pathways of varing degrees of difficulties (e.g. multiple versions of courses/sections in core/intro courses) for its students to meet its curriculum (which may also have to be diluted for better accommodation). For the advanced courses that can’t be offered in multiple versions, the depth may need to be compromised to accommodate more students.
The distribution also affects how a student’s academic fit in a college. A student on the right side of the distribution will be able to take advange of more of the interesting opportunites a school offers, especially at a place like MIT where many such opportunties exist, while a student in the left tail of the distribution may be too overwhelmed to fully take advantage of any such opportunity.