As an addendum to other useful information in answers and comments: it's not that MIT or other elite places have some sort of monopoly on information, even if one means bleeding-edge stuff. It may be true that the high-end instructors at elite places are in personal possession of bleeding-edge information, so can put other things in that context. And, indeed, those seemingly subtle aspects can matter enormously.
The genuine action-point is that, by merely "looking at" or having a "participant certificate" in regard to any discussion, one does not certify that one is quasi-effective in use of the ideas... and so on. That is, having paid admission to watch any sort of professional sport, and managing to understand the scoring, one has really no certification that one oneself can play that sport at a professional level.
Sure, if one hasn't ever seen experts play the sport, one is bereft. But, still, just having seen the Kentucky Derby many times doesn't mean that one can run a 3-minute mile.
The positive recommendation from me is that one probably does want significant contact with people who have made/done significant, genuine mathematics. Otherwise, if one is hoping to make research contributions, unless one is The Chosen One, one is stuck in a position exactly analogous to trying to make money on the stock market with just the same info that everyone else has (i.e., no insider info, unlike members of Congress are allowed to use...).
That is, it's not that MIT has better info about entry-level things, it's that the faculty there have access to, and are creators of, high-end, bleeding-edge stuff. As are certain people around the world.
Perhaps surprisingly, then, the point is not the "program", but the people. Their notes can certainly be useful, perhaps incredibly so, but it's still not the live thing.