It's unfair to highly skilled people, because it would bore the hell out of them. That's how you weed out the top 1% and breed a normalized group of students. I truly understand why some of the super-skilled people I know didn't even consider going to any higher school, but still beat the shit out of the PhD's that I know, when it comes to a) knowledge b) theoretical and practical skill c) solid maths + formal verification. It doesn't mean that universities suck, but they polarize skills towards industrial demand and forget about the diversity of culture that arrived, they are about to eliminate for the greater good of the industrial market, which manifests in the number of graduates. But oh beware, that too many graduate, as if that would mean that the university is cheap and will loose it's prestige. Professors tend to hate it, when too many pass their exams and often times help to let some % of the students fail on purpose, to keep up their "prestige". If every single professor explained thinks like on Reddit's ELI10 and used interactive media to underline the structure behind a problem, then almost everybody would pass. So, does a high number graduations automatically mean that the university only teaches low-skill courses, resulting in low-quality students? I'd say no, if they teached students more efficiently.