There's a lot in your post that implies that the distribution of education is irrelevant; that there's no need to rate the quality of an education system according to how many people are being educated, but just that whoever manages to get any education is being educated well.
I didn't really include distribution, I used 'educational system' and 'education' as the same things (which was fine in the context I did, but which are not the same when used in the context you are pointing at), and more or less assumed saturation or near-saturation of the demand for education. As was evidenced by the qualification in one of my posts that country-wide per capita GDP can only be a proxy when a sufficiently large portion of the population has received an education.
So I guess you're correct, that I was talking about the quality of the education itself, and that I wasn't talking about quality of an educational system (as opposed to: quality of the education). But then again that's not what this discussion was about anyway, nor do I have any special thoughts on that, so I'm not really interested in going off on a tangent in that direction.
Would you agree with that assessment?