At my graduate institution, the undergraduate attitude was quite different; socializing was important, learning the minimal amount was efficient, and cheating was socially accepted (by peers, not necessarily the profs).
I was shocked at the difference in academic achievement this caused. The tests at the second institution were far easier, yet people were failing them. This was a difference between scoring 80% on nontrivial proofs, vs scoring 60% on one-step theorem applications. I don't think the incoming freshmen were vastly inferior. Rather, the culture at the first institution forced students to apply themselves through peer pressure, because that's what they perceived everyone else to be doing, and also what was valued. My advisor at the second institution seemed quite pessimistic about changing its culture, and viewed the first institution as a rare exception that would not be emulatable. He did agree on the extent of the difference.
From the prof perspective, this is all irrelevant because it's quite rare for a school to develop a good culture, so it's not the experienced reality for most profs. Asking to become faculty at a top institution where the undergraduates also all care about academics is like wishing for unicorns.
* Some selection bias here: I took grad classes, so these were the only math majors I had exposure to. Although, these were the only classes available because the school was small, so I'm not sure what an undergraduate could take if he didn't want to take grad classes.