I probably shouldn't be adding to a thread when drunk (Beijing rocks, by the way) but...
I agree that a large part of the ATPL theory is never used in real life, but I do think that it adds to the general background information. We could get into a debate about FAA V's EASA qualifications, but I fear that we'd be here all night. They are two different things one (generally) requires people to have thousands of hours experience before getting into something like a 737 or A320, the other one is geared to getting people into that at just 200 hours. Which is better? I don't know. But if you're going to do the exams and claim that you have that level of knowledge, then I consider it a fallacy, actually I consider it a downright lie - to say that you know the information (passed the exams) when actually you just learnt the answers.
The system may well be flawed, the exam questions ridiculous. But if you were asked in an interview whether you'd learnt the syllabus or just the questions, what would your answer be?