[Just for the record I have no current affiliation to any school. However historically I have instructed for Bristol (a long way back) and (more recently) assisted with some limited parts of their material development. I also wrote a book for Propilot and used to work for Graham for a while. I've been flying aircraft for nearly 30 years including the RAF, General aviation and as a Captain for British Airways. I also have extensive classrom and line training experience.]
The content of a ATPL theory is FAR more relevant than most students think. For sure, some of it is over the top (Electrics for example) but by and large it is worth knowing.
(I do think it could be a bit streamlined, but if I had my way I'd ADD depth in some areas)
There are essentially 5 reasons why you need to know this stuff:
1. To pass your exams so you can get your licence.
2. To pass a technical interview so you can get a Job.
3. To make it easier (a lot easier!) to pass a type rating.
4. To survive when reality throws you a malfunction or combination thereof that is not covered by the book. In particular, how to deal with double binds; this requires deep knowledge so you can assess the relative risks of various courses of action.
5. So that, eventually, when *you* are a management or manufacturers pilot that the procedures you write are based on knowledge rather than a tenuous grasp of reality.
All schools will care about (1).
As for (2) to (5) who can say?
Pasing the exams is the easy bit. For gods sake make it your mission to gain as much knowledge as you can - it's cheap and will equip you well.
And as for the idea that it's so deep you can design the aircraft..... are you kidding? Engineering (design - not maintenance 'engineering') is way beyond the complexity of the ATPLs. Oh, and I have an engineering degree as well, so I know what I'm talking about.
Jamesaidan, you post is one of the worst I've seen in years. You are not only ignorant but proud of it.