Here's what it said in its introduction to study skills:
"The amount of difficult material to be learned at university, not to mention the increasingly competitive classroom atmosphere, has led successful students to become more sophisticated and educated in their own study techniques, study habits, and study efficiency" (Kolasiewicz, Sarah, "Study Skills Program")
It's interesting to see several confessions in this passage. First, the admission that universities are not about the success of the students, but are about competitiveness. It seems a shame that they don't want to graduate as many doctors, engineers, or scholars of every field as possible, but would rather make learning competitive and restrict society to only a few people capable of contributing.
The second admission, is that it seems the successful students have to develop their own study skills and aren't supported by the university.
These two confessions point out the distinct difference between the public school system and universities. The mandate of the public school is to educate all and help them grow as learners. The university wants to eliminate all students but those that are supported by the elite of society who were given advantages from birth and have the home support to prepare them for post-secondary education.
These differences point to the most obvious argument; a K-12 education is not a preparation for university, but rather a preparation for life long learning, which may include university.
Does the university still stand by the 1985 statement?