I think the main problem that occurs at "uppity undergrads" is grade inflation. The average GPA at Harvard is 3.4, and the average GPA at Texas is less than 3.0. Now there are a few ways one could try to explain this. First, that the classes are roughly equal, but the student quality at Harvard is better. One might also argue that the classes at Harvard are much tougher, but the student quality is still that much better, and that accounts for the .4 difference. Knowing what we do about the two schools I would probably wager that the student quality at Texas is not so different from Harvard as to allow the second arguement to be true. There may be subtle differences in difficulty, but given class selection they are probably very tough to judge. It would be much easier to judge if their average GPA's weren't so far apart.
You don't think the difference in the quality of students at Texas and Harvard is significant enough to merit a .4 difference in average GPAs with inflation controlled? I'd have to disagree wholeheartedly with that. There's a lot of discussion about grade inflation at Ivy League schools as compared to public schools, but I think if you look at the caliber of accepted students it does make some sense. I realize I'm probably going to get criticized for saying that. It just seems illogical to me that some people expect the average GPAs at most universities to be the same, and if they're not, that grade inflation is the culprit.