I tend to try very hard not to hire people right out of school as they are so unable to add value to a project because of an intense lack of needed knowledge. In fact, the usual experience when I waver and take an intern is that we spend more time fixing the mistakes than the time made making them.
In the US, The Intern Development Program (IDP) is the industry's attempt to 'educate' architecture graduates, but the training you get depends entirely on the nature of the firm you work for out of school. Graduates can either get real experience working on and solving architectural problems, or they can become CAD monkeys, becoming the stenographer for another architect; draftsmen gaining little in their professional development. The difference in assignment is obviously decided by the guys at the top of the firm, so you're essentially at their mercy.
A good program mush have very solid engineering in addition to everything else. Students should be able to do the structural engineering for their own projects coming out of school (I did on my second house in the mountains), and have solid knowledge of mechanical and electrical engineering as well. This is a distant and impossible dream, it seems, for most programs these days.
And it makes perfect sense: the standard trendy philosophy in most schools is deconstructivism. And one of the tenets of that philosophy is that the real world is in flux and nothing really is knowable, etc etc. My experience is that Reality wins every argument put up against it.
The exception to this rule are open competitions, as this give young architects the opportunity to vie on a level playing field (e.g, the Pompidou)