Piling on to the unfunnies, while I agree with all this, once we get to a certain level, we need to trim the fat, so to speak, on what we are requiring students to learn. When I was studying engineering in college (before I failed miserably) I was in 100% engineering-related classes (math, sciences, etc...), I wasn't forced to spend even more of my student loans on Gothic Architecture or 18th Century British poets. I was in school to become an engineer, that is what I wanted to spend my money on, that is what my studies should have focused on. When I transferred schools and changed majors, I was required to take many classes outside my major (geological sciences) in order to fulfill my credit requirements. This included classes in drama, Greek literature, and French. We bemoan the cost of education, and then force students to take these classes that are a massive waste of time and money.
It's not that you're ACTUALLY going to need the hard dates of the Han Dynasty, but if you can learn that, you're going to be able to learn what you need to do to do your job.
The rest of your post is aces, but this just isn't true. Just because you can learn A, you aren't necessarily going to learn B. You need to develop the skill of learning, but you got to know your limitations as well. /DirtyHarry