It's not entirely uncommon that people feel they learn way better outside of school. I'd say that's a pretty huge indication of failure, given the fact that the entire purpose of school is learning.
In which case you'd expect (student-lead) learning outside of school would be superior, as you mentioned.
The "prussian model" strikes me as an urban legend.
i did fine in school, but until my upper-level college courses, i learned much more and more thoroughly from internet research and self-guided reading. i'm a millenial, so maybe things were different for older generations, but i also lived in what was considered a very good school district. i can hardly remember anything i learned in high school 10-15 years ago, but i can easily talk about the books i read at the time.
well, i can think of an exception -- i had an excellent english teacher that taught me how to write much better essays.
> Throughout most of American history, kids generally didn't go to high school, yet the unschooled rose to be admirals, like Farragut; inventors, like Edison; captains of industry, like Carnegie and Rockefeller;
Oh, "Einstein was bad at math! and I'm bad at math ... so I can be a genius too!". Farragut, Edison and Rockefeller would have probably excelled anywhere. Schooling, no schooling, home-schooling or Montessori schooling. What about the millions of people who were not schooled, and remained philistines their whole life?
If you are trying to solve your own smart child's education, his arguments make perfect sense. If you are trying to optimise the overall level of education of a country with a limited budget, things are more nuanced. There is, without question, lots of room for improvement in education. But suggesting that anybody can be a star if you take away that pesky schooling is disingenuous.