There are a lot of undergraduate courses out there and most of them agree on certain things, with regard to the subjects covered.
Courses that include mathematics (engineering, physics, etc) are preparing you for a particular job, and so the content reflects this. You learn the methods that will suit your profession.
But it's not so simple to catalog the techniques required to learn, when there's no specific application at the end of it. The goal of a math degree is to broadly cover as much as possible. Then, you specialise later, if you want to.
Given those open-ended terms, how do you construct an undergraduate curriculum? How do you decide which topic should be undergraduate instead of graduate?
I think the solution is to assume that an undergraduate course's goal is to prepare a student for the most likely next step. Courses in differential equations, linear algebra, etc, are taught because they're immediately useful in many fields.
Being a good mathematician isn't really a goal. You can't solve this with a curriculum.
Well I'm rambling. The question is, if you could design the perfect course of mathematics, how would you do it? (I'll let you decide what perfect means.) Perhaps you wish they'd included more of something in your undergraduate degree. Maybe, less of something else. Maybe you'd use different learning methods to what you were exposed to.
EDIT: also, I think this is important too: what standard would set for your course? Consider this: should a student be great at every topic you can think of? Should they be very good at one particular thing? I'm sure there are universities out there that give degrees to students who are fine at many things, but a master of none. Should that be acceptable?
How would you gauge dexterity in any subject, and how dexterous should a student be at a given subject?