> Down side: Your peers aren't as smart, and your peers are really what push you to work on interesting projects.

You also don't have access to those interesting research projects to begin with. To be that's the biggest downside (if you're in the sciences / engineering).

I do generally agree with your post -- but I think it only works if you 1) apply yourself sufficiently despite not having peers pushing you (have to be able and willing to buck the tide; not everyone is), and 2) go to a top grad school (as you did), which requires point 1 to get accepted

> You also don't have access to those interesting research projects to begin with.

Faculty members still need to do research to get grant money and pay part of their salary. They still want to publish papers. They still compete. At least where I went, the research was interesting enough.

> apply yourself sufficiently despite not having peers pushing you (have to be able and willing to buck the tide; not everyone is),

Yes, you need the motivation to do well. In my experience, and of those I've asked who were in a similar situation: If you are aiming high and go to such a school, you believe you're getting an inferior education (mostly false), and you compensate by studying more than what is assigned. Then you go to a top grad school and find you know more than your peers who went to a top university.

But if you're not motivated, then this whole thread is rather pointless. And if you're not motivated, you definitely are better off going to a mediocre state school. You could seriously get burnout at a top university and drop out. I've known fairly smart people at those top universities end up that way.