I had forgotten about this subject. I'd put it to rest- and you woke the beast from it's peaceful slumber. Cudos for the best response so far.
Yes, it occured to me that there are indeed many other variables involved here and as such that hurdle can be jumped as well. One need only set up a pond/pool with a known environment and population of fish(fish can even be optional too- machines that can simulate fish nibbling/biting could be utilized). Employ trained statisticians as well as various other science/engineering graduate students under the supervision of a well seasoned researcher(s) and I do think that a test could indeed be designed that could do a very decent job of evaluating rod sensitivity, etc. with respect to the fisherman.
Insofar as I do not think that all/most high end rods are less sensitive than the majority of mid-priced rods, in the spirit of a true skeptic (which I think many people don't get or even give a rip about) is that such claims must be proven to me if I am to fork out that much hard earned money. I love to fish. I hate to waist money. I like to find equipment that is the best bang for the buck. Sure I might get a bit more sensitivity with a $300-$600 rod, but will the improvement be that much more?
Never in the history of the world has technology(due to good science) and free enterprise been able to offer me a 4.5oz, forty-eight million modulus rod with titanium guides, and Fuji seating, a Shimano Curado baitcaster, state of the art (fill in your favorite brand) line, and a tackle box filled with goodies, all for a half days' wages. My grandfather couldn't even acquire the line I have on my reel as it wasn't even available to the wealthiest man on Earth back in his day. So if I'm going to be told that rod X at $300 is superior to rod Y at $100, I say "Prove it." I can spend that other $200 on bait, hooks, gasoline, lunch, etc. and still not catch just as many fish. :)
BTW Welcome to the board.