there's often a difference between going where you'll get the best training versus getting the stronger CV value. I think a lot of folks would very reasonably go to a big name academic center because it carries a lot of cache and you don't have to sell that program to future employers. That's a value unto itself without getting into the "better trained" issue, which is why I suggested above that you need to separate out the questions of what equates to better training versus what lands you a job more effortlessly -- these needn't be the same thing.
Few people will turn down the really prestigious resume, but it's not always because the training is "better", it's because the perception is better. But perception and reality don't always co-exist, and for a variety of reasons they often don't in residency training. The reason these don't align is sometimes (but not always) because (1) large academic centers train more fellows, and this can leave residents wrestling for scraps, (2) big name research guys often are more focused on their research than their clinical teaching obligations, so lots of Nobel winners may simply mean lots of attendings who don't want to waste their time training residents, (3) more zebras means less bread and butter stuff, the stuff you'll actually see in practice, (4) high volumes in a perpetually short staffed situation means more hands on learning for residents earlier at the community places, and as Prowler suggests, (5) an emphasis on research sometimes means less time for or focus on, the hands on stuff. The place with no fellows where you see a much higher volume of the bread and butter stuff, and eg get into the OR in your first year and are doing things solo a few years later, is going to make you more technically proficient at the bread and butter stuff you see in private practice. Being at a place where you watch over the shoulders of fellows as they learn to manage some crazy zebras, and get to write up lots of case reports and present at national meetings, has value, but not the equivalent value if your goal is to be a local private practitioner.
I'm not saying this is true in every case, and I'm not saying you might not want to go to the big name academic center for the resume value alone. But I think you get onto very shaky ground when you start making claims of who is better trained, the technician vs the academician. Both have their place and both have a lot of skill-sets and blindspots. Which again, if you think about it, might even suggest that programs somewhere in the middle of these two extremes probably provide the best value.
