Yes - there's unfortunately some notion that as you move lower down the "prestige ladder", the easier / less rigorous the academic content becomes.
I've studied at both good and "poor" schools, and my experience has been that both have their strengths and weaknesses. I've taken classes that were extremely rigorous and in-depth at the low-prestige (or rather, no-prestige) school, pretty much identical to the same classes offered at the big-name school. Only difference was that the first school had a 50% failure rate, whereas the latter school had much better pass-rate, along with grade distribution that was shifted more towards the A.
This is probably due to the caliber of students, the work was the same.
Were these computer science classes? My experience is that the difference between top and “poor” schools is much wider in CS (likely because the academic job market in the humanities and sciences is so tough that you get highly qualified teachers even at “poor” schools).
But with that said, there's a ton of variance within school themselves. Courses can be different from year to year, depending on who's in charge.
One thing I noticed was that the lifers - that is, the older professors, usually had very predictable classes. They'd use the same lecture notes, hand-ins, etc. year after year, often running on decades. They knew their audience, so to speak, and had extremely structured classes. These classes tended to be quite comfortable to take...no surprises, to put it that way.
Then you had the freshly minted professors, that would have a class here and there, usually new classes every other semester. These guys tended to be much more rigorous, and assuming on the level of competence (of their audience) - at least in grad school.
The coursework was rigorous and excellent.