In theory, yes... but there are a number of problems, the most obvious one is that those "units of knowledge" used in the pass/fail process are extremely coarse

In theory, yes... but there are a number of problems, the most obvious one is that those "units of knowledge" used in the pass/fail process are extremely coarse. Grades are handed down per activity... and in general on a monthly or even bi-monthly basis. In theory, this should provide feedback to the teacher to adjust the pace of the learning. In practice, the study program is set in stone and the students who cannot catch on their own will be left behind, no questions asked. The only pass/fail test is at the end of the year, where everything is shoveled together. If the student completely fails to grok subject 3... but excels at subjects 1, 2 and 4. This liability gets lost in the numbers, remaining as a time bomb that will blow on his face in a couple of years when subject 3 is a building block of more complex stuff. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that grading is extremely lax also. This is my personal opinion, any grade less than "B" shows knowledge in either immature (student needs to study more) or flawed (students have inaccurate assumptions that need to be detected and corrected by instructor) stage. If C and D students are allowed to proceed to later stages, they are being set to fail, because the teachers there are unlikely to devote any attention to correct deficits from previous years.