I think you can get an amazing education at most of the top schools, both ivy league and non-ivy. In defense of the larger ivy league schools, though, which other people have labeled as overly graduate-oriented, I do not feel that is necessarily true. Simply because a school has very strong graduate programs does not mean its undergraduate program is neglected; strong graduate programs often provide professors and resources that benefit the undergraduates as well.
For instance, at one of the stigmatized "graduate oriented" schools, Yale, a lot of focus is put upon the undergraduate program. The vast majority of the upper level classes are seminars, which means that students work directly with the professor in a small about 20 person setting; many of these professors are very prominent figures in the academic arena. The professors lead discussion, grade all the papers, etc. Also, as long as you have the approval of the instructor, you can take graduate classes, and a large number of the classes actually are double-listed for undergraduates and graduates. Certainly as with any school, there are large lecture classes in which you only see the professor during lectures; many of those classes are intros or involve high-demand professors, whom Yale wants to ensure that as many as people are able to learn from. For all of those classes, though, the professors have office hours, so if you really want to talk to the professor individually, he or she is available. Is this set-up unique to Yale, though? Definitely not.
Anyway, I feel like people are bashing each other's schools based primarily upon misconceptions or rumors about the school. As with most of the medical schools, I think the differences in the quality of education are minimal; each school just has its own unique personality.