Trained in hard science. Most of the «lessons» are just about learning «math recipes» that are highly suspicious (like lambda calculus in pertubation theories)

Trained in hard science. Most of the «lessons» are just about learning «math recipes» that are highly suspicious (like lambda calculus in pertubation theories) that works in one and only one case and avoiding the «generic methods» like Hamiltonians. So basically most of my «scholarship» was about learning more than one way to do the same thing other and other again in up to 4 distinct notations (Einstein with 4D vectors), Nabla operators, quaternions ...) Whereas working in labs was a total different story. It was basically «telescope building». I learned computer programming for physicists and to be honest most of CS are pretty clueless about memory, and how to make flow of data kick computers in the balls. So, I really think that even «hard» science as an heavy load of «apprenticeship» and that scholarship have an heavy load of fat vs muscle. If we «optimized» training not to achieve a social status based on how much more years someone studied but based on what is required, the whole society would be improved. So I stick to my gun, for me studies and their indirect cost of «non availability» on the market is excessive and every one (except banks and universities making an awesome lot of money out of it) are losing.