BP,
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. If I understand you correctly you see no point in learning what you consider unrelated, superfluous material. Most (all) vocational courses worth their salt push the boundaries to give the student a rounded and comprehensive understanding.
Yes that is exactly the view I hold!
Imagine if when you did your A Levels you wanted to get Maths A Level, but to geti t you also had to study French, Biology, Car Mechanics, Home Economics and Indonesian Basket Weaving. If you pass them all you get your Maths Level ....... fine you are a more rounded person but completely pointless course and nothing to do with the end objective!!!!!!!
As IO540 says there are vast differences in PPL & ATPL. PPL takes someone who knows absolutely nothing about aviation and teaches them the technical & theoretical knowledge required to operate an aircraft in UK Airspace. I will agree that there were some bits nearly sent me to sleep whilst reading through the TT books but on the whole the PPL study was relevant.
I do not think that giving a student superfluous material to study is pushing the boundaries of the student - more likely just boring them to death and costing them a lot of time/money. If the exam was IR specific you could very easily push them - and you would be pushing them in the relevant areas!
The time/cost element is a big reason why a lot of pilots are going the FAA route. The FAA IR is not superior or inferior to the JAA one but is certainly a whole lot cheaper if you take the ATPL exams into account as well as the exam is included in the FAA course - £4,000 Vs £15,000.
Suggest you read 'The Killing Zone' if you have not already. There is a very good reason why the FAA decided to make the IR more accessible to pilots by reducing the number of hours required to commence the course and it had the desired results. Would be a big leap forward if we followed suit....
Julian.