Do experienced candidates really deserve preference in today's 2yr MBA scenario?

Whenever there are debates about the utility of a MBA, the question comes up of work experience. Theorists like Mintzberg argue that MBA should  be offered to candidates with atleast 3-4yrs work experience, and that too part time, allowing the candidate to apply learning directly on the job. While global MBA programs already offer such an option, the focus of this post is the value that experienced candidates bring to the table vis-a-vis freshers in 2yr MBA programs. In 1yr MBA programs, admissions are anyway restricted to candidates with atleast 5yrs+ experience(ISB) or 8-9yrs(IIM-A)

The conventional arguments for giving preference to experienced candidates vis-a-vis freshers is

1. Unlike freshers, they would(hopefully) have more goal clarity about WHY they want to do a MBA. But the counter to this would be that they are taking the easy way out of career stagnation, or simply that even they are attracted more by 'filthy lucre' than the genuine desire to change streams. 
2. Having worked in an organization before, their perspectives on the 'softer aspects' like group dynamics, organization politics, change management etc will rub off on their group mates, and also help in giving a non financial perspective to class discussions and case analysis. The counter argument is that those who have been part of ANY organization(including clubs, associations) will bring the same value.
3. Their sector expertise(gained by working in XYZ field) will add value to class discussions. This of course, would apply to those with a minimum threshold of work experience-I think 1-2yrs just does not cut it. This could also lead to 'cross fertilization' of ideas when people from different backgrounds and expertise interact. They could work on consulting projects etc and add value
4. They will take away more value from the MBA program because they can relate it easily to their previous experience. This may not hold for very experienced candidates whose mindset may be fixed. So institutes like IIM Bangalore have the maximum work exp weights for candidates with 3yrs experience, after which the score for work exp keeps reducing. Also, this point focus more on the life experience of the candidate(which goes WAY beyond work exp alone). 

The only strong point remaining is the sector expertise part. To that, the technological advances negating the work exp advantages are

1. HowStuffWorks is a site which explains the technical details of processes in simple to understand language. So for that operations case describing steel making, you no longer need a chemical engineer to describe it to the class. Just open the site and look at the animations/videos.
2. YouTube has a plethora of videos for both technical aspects and marketing aspects as well. 
3. There are amply biographies/non fiction books(like Eli Goldratt's books) which give a flavour of the practitioners work. Of course, value accrues only to those who take out that time to read. 
4. Where faculty have that industry background/awareness, then the necessity of students having it is reduced.

I agree that ceteris-paribus, experienced candidates may still add more value to the class than freshers. But in this tech savvy world, this is much harder to substantiate.