> If you extend this to its logical conclusion There is a big difference between, 'you don't need university' and 'you don't need teaching'. > I think anyone

> If you extend this to its logical conclusion There is a big difference between, 'you don't need university' and 'you don't need teaching'. > I think anyone with a trade (like plumbing) or an engineering degree would wholeheartedly disagree. At some point, you don’t know what you don’t know, and your own biases will blind you to the full breadth of any topic. University professors that teach rocket science are not the same thing as working in a rocket factory with rocket engineers. Seems to me that you are making an argument against universities, if you invoke that the primary way of learning is with a practitioner. That would mean people should go directly into the work force and learn on the job. > Perhaps with lots of wealth, we’d all have enough time to teach ourselves advanced skills, try them out, and learn from mistakes, but most people don’t have that luxury. College gives that framework to everyone who can attend. Actually college is far, far more expensive, and if it was about learning, it would make no sense.