I'm finding this true as well. I was in graduate school for a year and got my ass kicked. I actually failed at least one course. I was lucky enough to swing int

I'm finding this true as well. I was in graduate school for a year and got my ass kicked. I actually failed at least one course. I was lucky enough to swing into industry with a better job than most MAs or "ABDs" get so I didn't go back for a second year. I kept myself in challenging work and average 10-15 hours per week studying CS concepts. Now those same subjects that kicked my ass seem not only comprehensible but beautiful. What was a poorly-motivated technical mess of symbols (to me) I can now relate to real concepts in CS, and I could play with them if I needed to. (Godel numbering? Oh, that's Lisp encoded in the integers. Primitive recursion? It's a for-loop.) So it seems like I'm "smarter" at 26 than at 22, contrary to stereotype. Because I have more experience to relate new concepts to, I find it much easier now to learn new concepts in mathematics and science, except for the fact that I have 1/4 as much time in which to do so. The problem is that most people are taught subjects like algebra and calculus without much motivation and with no prior experience, so only natural ability and parental expectations can drive people to learn them. Calculus isn't actually hard, unless your algebra sucks. Algebra is only hard for so many people because it's poorly-taught and often not well-motivated, so only people who get a lot of encouragement (often because of natural ability and a developed inclination to solve puzzles) learn it. The lesson I take away from this is that education (about sciences, but also literature and history) isn't something that should occur only for those who are too young to be economically useful; it ought to be an ongoing process.