Yup. In fact I'm currently studying for a GMAT for a finance masters' entrance exam (don't ask me why) and in my first day I already lost count of how many time

Yup. In fact I'm currently studying for a GMAT for a finance masters' entrance exam (don't ask me why) and in my first day I already lost count of how many times I've read or heard in study material/videos that 'it doesn't matter if you understand the question or know the answer, if you can strategically derive what the multiple choice answer should be'. Why is this even a thing? Because the tests are done under quite a bit of time pressure and not answering a question doesn't count for 0, it actually penalises your score. So here I am, in my early 20s with a bachelors, decent education, co-founded and ran a profitable startup for a few years, and I'm studying for a test by learning how to game the test, rather than learning the knowledge that's supposed to be tested. In fact, a quick anecdote, I literally just read the introduction to the official gmat review which in the very first pages talks about a chunk of the book that'll be on 'guessing technique', and states 'What differentiates good test takers from great test takers is the ability to guess in such a way as to maximize the chances for a correct answer.' just to give you an idea about what top universities expect me to spend my time on in order for them to decide whether to accept me or not. Isn't that insane? It then follows 'With some practice and some insight into how ACT writes its wrong answers, you can increase your odds of guessing correctly from the 20 percent of a completely random guess to 50 percent or higher.' Note that this guessing aspect can make all the difference between scoring just well vs sufficiently for entry somewhere. If I fail the test, I can't get into the school. The school that offers courses that I've already taken a few years back which were never certified, to learn things that I've already applied in the workspace, just so I can land a job that I can demonstrably already do, in part because the company doesn't want to take the risk of hiring me without this degree (unless I have exceptional work experience, something you generally only get recognised for sans a diploma after your 30s), and in part because the government in my country is pushing finance guys to be certified. So do I want to take a risk? No not really, not in this environment. Do I really care for this test? Absolutely not. The degree? Nope. But I'm expected to care to actually land a job, and if I don't land that job, I can only get ahead on a combination of extreme grit, reinventing the wheel and a fair bit of luck by pushing out on my own. But that doesn't mean I see this GMAT or this Master's as a 'measure of success', it's a pointless exercise I'd rather do without, but failing it disqualifies me from many opportunities and puts me on a path of most resistance. I feel some decades ago there was still a sense of career mobility, now a master's degree is becoming a default requirement that often isn't anywhere near enough. With all these formal and strict requirements, there's not a lot of room for a focus autonomous learning, only on the periphery, as it's usually not certified/accredited and thereby not recognised and thereby not of value when applying for a job. Software engineering (portfolio) experience feels like a rare exception to this rule.