I know that in academia there are 2 distinct groups of people - those who challenge the status quo and those who accept it and seek to expand it. I believe that this is born from the fact that people who do well enough to make it in are either smart or very hardworking or both. I'm personally straddling the middle and have a healthy amount of respect for both groups (though I tend to respect the hardworking status-quo group more). The smart/critical ones tend to see the disconnect and hypocrisy between learning and the aims of the education system, and the hardworking ones tend to believe in the system. But for academia to function, we need both groups of people.
I guess that's the thing - an education system, in itself, is a paradox. On an idealistic level, education should be personal, driven by curiosity and the want to know more on a global scale and be fueled by discussion - that's what Plato's academy was founded on. On the other hand, it's a system. How can you systematise something that is so individualistic?