I thought both sides get to pick who is on the Jury?

I'm not sure how much the rules vary, but in our case there were 18 candidate jurors and both sides were allowed to dismiss 3 without cause or justification. Additionally, if either side could argue there was a cause, additional jurors could be dismissed (requiring new jurors to be summoned), but that didn't happen. The plaintiffs removed the 3 with any college at all.

Is the problem not that only 3 out of 18 had college-level education? That seems like a very low number.

That could be a representative sample of the area the trial was held in. Trial by jury of your peers means that some juries will be composed of mostly and sometimes even all "peers" with less formal education that most would think appropriate for the subject matter being discussed.

Right and both sides try to make the jury as biased as possible. trying to select for objectiveness is harmful.

Harmful to the side doing the picking or harmful to the justice process in general?

i would argue, both