Ah! Yes, you're clearly in the well-educated group, and I certainly hope I didn't suggest otherwise! And I do recognize that my comment—too many comments, really—fall within the realm of "preaching to the choir", but it's still worth getting a thought out, in case it triggers something in somebody else's mind (potentially building beyond what "the choir" has considered, thus far).

Mind you, it does still seem that your education, a little like mine, was perhaps too concerned with knowledge—what might be called "data", these days. (While I'm guessing you absorbed it, I mostly stared out the window wondering why I was so hopelessly bored!) I think education needs to start steering more toward ideas and the structure/function of thought—what it is and how to use it—rather than just packing in facts. I do realize there are psychologists and neuroscientists who would disagree... (i.e., there needs to be knowledge in order for thought to connect the proverbial dots.) But it seems to me that human brains absorb knowledge somewhat automatically; it's a kind of motor funciton of the brain. How knowledge is used by thought is another matter.

The "classical" in Classical Education didn't have access to search engines, which does change the game. They needed to pack in knowledge that was largely inaccessible otherwise, in order for thought to be elaborated. With such wide access to knowledge, assuming that it can "go in" more easily than we might imagine, more emphasis can be placed on the act of thinking itself. And of course, on the intention of having the thought, and whether or not to apply it in a given situation. So it can be more deliberative... It seems to me that too much thought is automatic, intuitive, uncritical... Obvoiusly that's super valuable, though more from a perspective of either survival or interpersonal dynamics. But much of what we deal with in educated societies has little to do with survival. Or at least the connection to survival is somewhat indirect. Dunno. Definitely riffing here. Haha...