I agree to some extent. In my experience (obviously a generalisation), the staff at lower-ranked institutions might not have especially strong research profiles but they're very good teachers. If there were a 'value-added' score, they'd do very well.
There are some students who struggle but work very hard and deserve to succeed. I'd never put someone down for working hard and scraping a 2:2 or whatever. Not everyone has the capacity for high-level academic work. There's an argument that university isn't really for these people but they're trying to better themselves and their employment prospects by getting a degree and I really can't criticise them as individuals. Plenty are also mature students juggling other commitments.
I do judge those who treat university like an extension of school or an opportunity to socialise and just don't bother, or who play games on their phones during lectures and then complain that things 'weren't explained properly' and that's why they failed.
(My personal experience is very unusual. Working class, dropped out of school at 16, no A Levels, went to London Met much later, got high 1st, now attending KCL with a Cambridge scholarship for next year - so they clearly don't see my London Met degree as worthless! And I never would have considered applying to high-ranking places for postgrad if not for the encouragement I got from staff at London Met.)