"Though there have been many shifts in the academic system from that time, such as the introduction of a wide range of subjects, we still employ a lot of the same methods of learning."
Jesus bleeping Christ, Jade. Where do I even start. Obviously, I'm not a top expert on this and I don't claim to be (If I was, Minevera would've hired me by now, obviously), but I would like to say something about this based on my own experiences. For some context: I've been studying to be a teacher for around five years now, so I've nearly finished my Master of Education. I'm from Germany so I'm not sure if all of this applies to the UK too, just as a little disclaimer.
Jade's assumption here is "reciting fact knowledge is how most of school works". I genuinely don't know how she comes up with that statement. Was your education literally just memorising things? In that case, it must've been the worst school of the UK and I sort of doubt that.
I'm studying two subjects, English and History, and part of my degree was to understand how teaching these two subjects has changed in time.
In history, factual knowledge isn't the focal point anymore. It is still important of course, but general compentences that enable you to interact with any historical sources are at the centre of our teaching. When interacting with sources from the past, in whatever form, (texts, pictures, objects) we encourage the students to ask questions like this: Who is the author of this source? What type of source is it? To what extent can we even learn from it? How is the source written, what sort of language does it use? What visual techniques are employed? And then, in a next step: What can we learn about the past from this? How would you judge this- from a contemporary and from a modern viewpoint? Teaching students these skills, instead of memorising facts, is at the core of modern history didactics, because it encourages critical thinking.
In foreign language teaching in general, different approaches have been taken. (In the 70s for example, there was an auditory approach, because it was thought this would be the most effective way of learning. This is also portrayed in the fourth season of the Crown, when Prince Charles is learning Welsh.) What we have now is the communicative approach - the end goal is to teach students skills that will enable them to foster receptive skills (reading, listening) and productive skills (writing, speaking). The thought behind this is that the end goal is to communicate with people in that language - so we should prepare students for that. That is why we ask them to talk to each other in a foreign language, test their listening skills, ask them to write texts. Most of these situations are artificial of course, but we try to make them as close to reality as possible. During an internship, I taught kids some thirteen year old kids about London sights - why? Because they might travel there and THAT is what they will need English for.
I agree with Jade partially here. To a certain extent, factual knowledge has to be taught. There's no way around learning vocabulary or time forms. Of course it's boring, of course it's annoying, but how else will you learn the language? This is, however, not the only part of foreign language teaching anymore.
In addition, lectures on psychology were mandatory to make sure we understand how learning works in the brain - part of what they found was that passively reciting isn't an effective way of learning - producing something of your own results in a much higher engagement with the material. An example for this: Let's assume we're trying to teach German kids the simple past. Passively reciting would be to ask everyone to say the sentence "Tony swam last week". It's boring, ineffective. What do we do instead? Show them a picture that shows a boy swimming. Underneath are the words: "Tony - last week". The kids have to find the word "swim" for the picture, remember the simple past and then put it into a sentence. It requires more work on their part, and is much more effective.
Of course the education system is still full of flaws and less than ideal, but these changes have been made to make learning more successful and efficient. (Edit: Also, this is just the theory of how ideal learning works. Not every teacher will construct their lesson like this of course. In my school time, some teachers followed this principle closely and others didn't give a tit.)
Also I decided not to link to any of the sources here (It's a gossip forum afterall, not an academic essay). But if anyone's interested I'll look it up of course. After all, it would be madness to claim something and then not to back it up with sources, right Jade?
To sum up: The claim that "we still employ a lot of the same methods of learning" is doubful. Of course we still need factual knowledge, but didactics has moved way beyond that. If she had done minimal research into this, she had realised that. I think it is wild in general that Jade decided to write a book on studying and academia without any experience in the field except her own as a student, and then not add any sources or references. But you know, she also quoted wikipedia in your uni essay.
Sincerely, a German German aspiring teacher.
TLDR: I'm studying to be a teacher. We don't just make students memorise things, we make them interact with the material. It's more effective this way.
It's like Jade's "I'm so edgy and still smoking hot" bedroom eyes. 
