He doesn't plan to become a Bat until his adult years in any continuity, as far as I am aware, and he doesn't start his training until he becomes a legal adult where he then goes around the world to become prepared to take care of any weird and dangerous stuff that gets thrown his way, although none of that would necessarily prepare him for the cost of such a grand endeavor.
That and we've seen visions of Bruce that wasn't Batman that don't end up near as effective as Batman is.
I mean, I read plenty of modern comics where Batman saves people and stops major villains, so I think whatever the issues of his modern incarnation he is still an effective Superhero as far as the bare basics of being a Superhero...and there have been well-adjusted versions of Batman with father figure Alfred (B:TAS, Nolan more or less) so I don't think we can really point to Alfred as being responsible for his less than stellar moments.Is there a net good to Batman's existence in the modern incarnations? The way comic book status quos work, plus modern comics tendencies to escalate things, Batman hasn't had much of a visible positive impact on Gotham, and there is all his crimes against his kids and allies (in Gotham and in the JL). Maybe growing up without Alfred in pre-COIE allowed Bruce to become more self reliant instead of relying on his enabling man servant who continues to enable him as an adult? And that's why he was more well adjusted than the at times spoiled man-brat he is Flanderized as now. Like I'd see Batman as good if he was written as the hero he was meant to be/used to be, but that isn't always the case if we take a "it all happened" approach to the modern canons.
Having a counterpoint who can call out and balance out your decision making seems sensible. But I feel like we're talking about another issue here where Bruce is always in the wrong so another character can seem right, which extends to the entire Batfamily in my opinion.