Well, mostly. As you've pointed out, in the right curriculum you can get by without really having to study; ironically that tends to be the "Studies" curricula. Don't try it in Engineering, and that is precisely what our author here is talking about. Sure, we need more engineers and scientists, but we can't start building them in their Freshman year at the U.
And yeah, you're correct about the difference in teaching, which is what my young bud Dusty was talking about. Those professors who practice the no-nonsense approach (and I know a lot of them, too) get terrible online reviews as inflexible hard-asses. They also get excellent students and excellent results.
Play it out to the end.
What would happen if professors were paid only if the student mastered the course?
The professors would scream.
Then, they would develop a pre-test for their class. That way they weed out the students who aren’t prepared. That reduces the number of students and causes the professor’s pay to go down. Oh my.
No pre-test.
The students aren’t prepared and fail and the professor doesn’t get paid. Oh my.
The professor passes all the students.
You make the students prove competency in the subject by passing a standardized test not administered by the professor.
Then you stifle creativity by the professor and students.
Yes, but all would be trained to a standard of competency. Like the countries we worry so much about.