Sorry, I have to disagree. the ATPL theory isn't 90% irrelevant. Some of it is but by no means a large proportion as you suggest.
It's that kind of false belief that leads students to think they can safely ignore learning in favour of exam cramming - that's a big mistake.
A lot of the theory is trying to teach basic principles which, if properly understood, allows you to apply that knowledge to almost any situation.
The current syllabus is a long way from perfect but it does get you thinking and it's a he'll of a lot better and more relevant than the old CAA syllabus that preceded it.
Despite its limitations with a bit of imagination the subjects can be brought to life and taught in a meaningful and totally relevant way.
The biggest hurdle to proper learning isn't, I suggest, the 4 option multiple choice, but the way the exams are constructed. 4 opt MC is dreadful but much worse is having to teach students, for example, grid navigation and the North Atlantic track System in the same breath as the elementary principles of visual navigation in a light aircraft.
If the exams were properly split into basic and advanced knowledge then we could do proper integrated learning which means learn then practice followed by learn then practise.
Unfortunately EASA seems to have neither the intellectual clout nor manpower to mandate the kind of training system this industry so badly needs.