I'll second that. Having dropped out of an undergraduate architecture program a few years ago (for unrelated reasons) and having worked (until recently, laid off) at an architecture firm, I can attest to the gap between education and professional competence. I felt the program I was in focused almost entirely on things that were subjective (aesthetics), and prided itself on driving students into the ground by rewarding those students who were there in the wee hours of the morning. (I knew a professor who'd stroll through the studio at 3am just to see who was there toiling away).

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.

The reason most architects don't reach prominence until their later years (NY Times Architecture critic Ada Huxtable pegs the age at close to 60) is not due to a disconnect with the education and actual profession, but moreso because clients are less willing to trust and untried architect with a multimillion dollar project. It's similar in almost any industry, you need to slowly climb your way up the experience ladder, except a single architectural project will take years to complete, thus lengthening the amount of actual time it takes to get a "trustworthy" amount of projects under your belt before you can win big deals.

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)