The fallacy of "universal delivery" in the traditional education system is when professors deliver the same lecture to 300 students based on the idea that the students' prior knowledge is roughly the same. Basically they attempt to deliver new information that should on average be compatible with the prior knowledge of the students in the class.
While the knowledge comparison between new information and prior knowledge that underlies neural processing occurs at the level of individual concepts and memories, students in the traditional education system are broadly lumped together based on having attended similar courses.
I argue that this is highly ineffective for two reasons:
That a student has taken a course in algebra is no guaruntee that they have actually retained in their cognitive structure any of the fundmental concepts of algebra. It is a coarse guess based on the false assumption that students retain indefinitely the information they have previously learned, when in fact the memories of concepts in algebra for all students will decay over time, but at different rates depending on the stability of those memories in each student's brain. As a result, even students who took the same course in algebra and performed the same in an exam could have very different levels of retention of concepts in algebra 6 months down the line.
Schools and universities promote short-termism through the examination system which forces students to use cram-and-dump study methods: knowledge is hurriedly built during the revision season and prompty demolished as soon as the student leaves the exam hall. Perhaps universal delivery would be feasible if it was carried out in a system where effective learning methods like spaced repetition were used to minimize the role of forgetting in learning and linearize the acquisition of knowledge over time, but this is not currently the case.