You can't educate someone who is not ready to be educated. Those that get the most out of college are those that put the most in. This was true 1000 years ago, and is true now.

Yes, this system is the best [1] because access is open to all (which it wasn't). So those that want to go, can, and those who want to learn, can.

What probably needs to change is the understanding of what college is for. It's not to give you an education, it is to give you the opportunity for you to take an education for yourself.

[1] for some definition of best. Not all schools are created equal, nor all subjects, scale is in play here as well.

I somewhat agree about it being a chance for students to take education for them, but there is also the issue of an institution offering a limited view on a subject like computer science. For example some time ago I estimate that mainstream OOP was taught everywhere, while there was almost no place teaching FP (This is changing slowly now). Even if you took every opportunity you had, you might not have even a teacher or lecturer, who is familiar with it. You could only learn on your own, which you would not need that institution for. Teaching quality is not the same in all places. Teachers and lecturers are not the same everywhere.

Indeed not all schools, and not all subjects, are created equally. And your education is not limited to the specific subjects, or competencies of the school you happen to be at.

> any change or even reflection upon it is a waste of time.

That’s a bit extreme; I interpreted their view as, it’s hard to fix because of intractable issues, but it doesn’t mean we can’t have marginal improvements. Radical upheavals and revamps are sketchy.