Coming from an engineering background, I would give you this perspective on training. You teach everyone the same way, and in doing so, their strengths and weaknesses appear clearly, and you can focus your special attention to their problems rather than trying to fix things you don't recognize as being broken.
Where most of your students will exhibit your general fighting style and movements, there will be some that either excel or fail at it all, and those are the ones who reqiure special attention... the bad ones to fix what's broken, the good ones to help excel even further.
I used to work for an engineer and we designed industrial boilers for paper mills (huge, mulitstory ones). Every set of plans that we issued had the same mistake intentionally designed onto them. When I asked my boss why we didn't simply fix the problem, he said "I know how this will be installed when they do it, and I know how to fix it. If we do something different, I might not know what to do to get it running correctly".
Another matter in martial arts, however, is how trustworthy students are with the material they're taught... and teaching everyone the same way does away with a lot of the b-s of your "former students" showing up at other dojos and claiming things that aren't true about their training with you. Like a "bad signature" on a check, a rogue student will stand out like a sore thumb in a local martial arts community if they make outrageous claims about what goes on in your school, which is also one of the reasons for "tiered teaching" and separating different divisions of your students from one another.
It's one thing to teach someone mechanical movements, and another entirely to teach them lethal information, so while in the "weeding out" process, there is some merit in the division of classes by rank and experience.
Our school keeps everyone in one class for "general training" and takes students aside for "individual instruction" based on their rank and understanding of what we're doing. In that way, we both give everybody everything , but it is metered out as they develop the skills and mental attitudes to handle it.
People tend to forget that "deadly skills" are just that, and like training in firearms, I wouldn't hand a 10 year old a .44 magnum to let them start banging away at their fellow students. I wouldn't intentionally give anyone without good restraint the skills to damage anyone else either.
IMO Structured teaching will develop students who "look like you" in their movements and actions. As they develop, they will tend to either emulate you for necessity sake or because you "turn" their attitudes to reflect yours. In any case, they will become the mirror of their instruction, and how much of their own personality comes out will usually only happen after they are well-enough trained to "make you proud" of what they do.