Faculty look out at a sea of cookie-cutter "perfect" students... and how should they tell them apart? How can they know which three of them in a class of 100 are really worth the extra time? How can a STUDENT figure out which two classmates are genuine peers? They can't.
In a less elite setting, however, one of those PG kids IS that different from the rest. They will get noticed and nurtured because they are rare and special. Now, no-- they aren't going to have any more peers than in the elite setting.
This doesn't really jibe with my college experience. I have trouble believing that things have changed
this much in the intervening years.
I spent a year at UC Berkeley, and felt like I did more or less fade into the noise most of the time. I was able to connect with one professor, though, and I worked in his lab in the spring and summer. I never really connected with any peers. I can't even remember the name of my roommate.
Then I transferred to MIT, and I felt like
everyone "got" me. I connected with a number of professors, and worked for a couple of them. I made great connections with other students, many of whom I am still in contact with. Overall, a very positive experience.
In grad school (at MIT again), it started out OK, and devolved into a dreadful slog.
In law school (at Harvard, while I was working in a law firm), I never felt connected to anyone in my class, and I have trouble even remembering anyone who was there. My professors definitely knew who I was, but I doubt they remember me now, ten years out.
I'm not sure where UCB ranks in your hierarchy of selectivity, but I presume that MIT and Harvard are near the top of it. At the former, I was noticed and nurtured in undergrad; less so in grad school. At the latter, I was noticed but not nurtured, and I doubt that I am remembered.
