This applies both in the sense that "They will learn more effectively", and "They'll have a better shot at getting into universities".
I would simply not have had the self discipline or motivation to learn everything on my own, no matter how good the learning materials were. Oddly enough, even through college, there were subjects that I easily taught myself, such as electronics and programming, others that I needed to learn in a classroom, such as math and physics.
I would have had no parental supervision at home -- both of my parents worked.
The kids who succeed will succeed. That's not to say that everybody succeeds in school either.
The only thing I got from being in person was friends. But that can be achieved in other ways without having to be forced to sit on a class. Group studying is one, and helps a lot in learning.
If people choose a course and then don't have motivation for it that's a totally different problem. The problem lies not in tricks to make the person do it anyway, but on them reassessing why they chose that course in the first place. I always had motivation to do my course on my own because I chose it for a reason. And if kids are too young to see why they might want to do this specific course, then maybe the course itself needs to change to be a tiny bit more practical and fun.
IMO, the ability to self-study ahead of peers is a defining criteria for being in that top 10%. So, the system is working as designed.
This is very different from, say, perceiving school to be "so easy" that you are too advanced for it.