I mostly agree with that, but I would change it to “a good tertiary education has the potential to teach people to think critically.

If you look at the bottom half (or more) of the students at most good schools, and maybe the bottom 80% or so of the students at most not-so-good schools, you will find that the desire to learn does not extend much beyond “what do I need to do to get $GRADE?” Often the desired grade is merely a passing grade. If the answer is some variation of “learn to think critically”, expect extremely poor evaluations at the end of the term and low enrollment in future semesters.

The problem as I see it is that many people do not learn the value of critical thinking skills until later in life — typically after they have actually had to use them (and noticed that they were lacking) in critical life situations. In my experience, this is why vets (as one simple example) tend to outperform non-vets with similar entrance stats (e.g., grades, SATs, etc.) at highly competitive schools.

I would prefer to see our society have a reasonable means for people to engage in proper tertiary (and actually secondary) education on a continuing basis rather than just before he age of 22.

Do we really want to keep people in classrooms all their life up until 21, as if that's needed to give them critical thinking? Doesn't that make teaching sound inefficient?

Some people are ready to function in society younger than that, but they can't build savings for the rest of their life, do anything productive, or even have fun if you're making them spend another few years doing homework problems fulltime.

Unfortunately that isn't what higher education is today, because it's become so much a business/customer relationship from being tied to employment.

I think we could see a lot of benefit from separating an institute for higher academic pursuits from the employment and status market entirely, though I don't really have a good idea for how to go about doing that.