I think this is right. Of course what they are taught is different, and less under the control of universities. But they are well taught, the skills they gain are of value, and the objectives and outcomes of their school studies are clearly delineated and assessed. There is one further matter which I wish to put aside. I have commented several times that the anecdotal evidence suggests that smaller more integrated courses have less of a transition problem.
Some smaller universities coming from a different academic tradition often run such courses.
Pragmatically this does not solve the problem for larger courses at larger universities. However, I wish to point out that this solution, even if it were available, comes at a cost. Despite the problems with size, a significant size does permit large staff establishments, more electives, and a more responsive and dynamic curriculum in a changing environment. Over a period, the quality of outcome from small cohort courses are under considerable pressure. So while there are some transitional advantages, there are a number of counter-balancing academic disadvantages.