Actually, I have a Bachelor's degree in Biology, a Master's in Computer Science, and additional grad work in Medical Laboratory Science.
I've also taught at the middle school and high school levels, so I'm well aware of the bureacratic minds that run public schools.
Grad school curricula tends to be focused and without the PC garbage. I don't have a problem there.
It's the undergrad, liberal arts curricula foisted on every student that irks me. At least half of the coursework I took as an undergrad was a waste of time. If you attended a decent high school, you don't need yet another survey course in Western Civ or English Comp. Get rid of the sociology crud and the pseudo-sciences that clutter core requirements.
I'm with you on language courses. However, those requirements were being phased out when I entered college 40+ years ago.
The way to change the system is to be a vocal consumer. Grad schools are much more attuned to what their students want and really need. Undergrad schools are still stuck on the medieval, we-know-what's best-for-you model (heavy on PC content).
That's "bureaucratic".
I agree that graduate schools are better. Unfortunately, one has to go through the undergrad program to get there. My engineering grad program consisted entirely of engineering classes (imagine that!). No PC courses at all.
But, what would we do with the kids that don't know what they want to major in at 18 years old? I imagine that's a lot of them - I wasn't sure myself whether I wanted to go physics or engineering. A lot of the first 2 years' core courses might be aimed at giving the kids a well-rounded intro to what's available. But then - that should be going on in high school after all!