All this is needed for becoming a better what?
That's nothing to sneer at.
There are lots of people for whom this content is very valuable. Many of those people don't necessarily care about being able to use the title "computer scientist" is totally irrelevant. I have a degree in computer science but I don't call myself a computer scientist.
I don't see the reason to disparage the content because it doesn't come with the title. Maybe I'm missing something you can share?
To take the best reading I can of what your point is: you're saying a pupil will not self-study this course and go into CS academia. I agree with you there.
To me, that seems a poor reason to criticize this course, the content, or people who want to pursue it. There are many reasons to learn undergraduate CS material besides pursuing academia (again, self as an easy example: CS -> SWE). I don't feel there was anything in my degree which could not have been self-studied with enough tenacity.
If it's about joining academia, I get your point. Otherwise, really unsure why you're fixated on the title. Anyone can absolutely self study physics the same as computer science, and use that knowledge to advance their understanding in other fields, or hobbies, or just pursue knowledge for the satisfaction. Those all seem worthwhile to me :)
Albert-Laszlo Barabasi's book The Formula is kind of about this. While nothing would stop an individual from publishing such a paper, outside a major company or university setting an individual wouldn't have the network to notice the paper basically.
Is it more efficient if you collaborate with other people with the same goal (e.g. Academia)? Yes.
Is it a necessity to conduct science? Absolutely not; how do you think it was done in the past? Almost all of the early scientists were self-taught individuals.
The former needs paper and pencil. The latter requires expensive equipment to prove your theories. At best you can learn theoretical physics by yourself and formulate some hypotheses. Proving them might often be a completely different matter.
Even if it is a side-effect, who cares?
better computer scientist needs interaction with other people, needs to learn to respect their views or at least understand them, evaluate. perhaps needs to meet other scientists. to exchange ideas and approaches. this is what schools and academia is for.
this whole self-taught thing is a time-bomb. we already have too many self-taught engineers, architects and what-nots who can only work with themselves, listen to themselves, and agree to their own designs. not okay.
being good at anything more often than not means also being good in working with people.
even though you can also call yourself better piper or better kiter, doesn't mean you actually are better at anything just like this.
Social skills are very important, cannot be more important in these times. 15+ years in academia, not as researcher, but as teacher, showed one thing - the best learners are those who are best at listening, at interacting with others, not the top-bookshelf-worms. Usually not the top kids, but most usually become top contributors to teams and companies at later point.
Surely now and then an Einstein is born, but we also know of people who were very active in their social interaction without all the academia fuss about it. and academia is one place to find people to interact with. and academia is not only Oxford and MIT where entry level is very hard, nearly impossible.
So all of this is not about academia, rather about being human with humans.