>1) Financial rules are legal constructs - so not really suitable for academics. An academic syllabus might claim "Roth IRA implies X" then the law changes and

>1) Financial rules are legal constructs - so not really suitable for academics. An academic syllabus might claim "Roth IRA implies X" then the law changes and it is no longer true. And I would argue this artificial cultural limitation on "things must be abstract and timeless" to be academic-appropriate is the biggest reason common people don't learn. The lower the IQ the less able people are to handle the abstraction in the first place, and the higher the IQ the more the person has to have interest in abstract things even though they could understand it (attention span is greatly impacted - in my case - I never remember character names in a novel because I know they are just made up anyway - even if it is my favorite book) If you can show people something that exists in the real world they can imagine themselves actually using the knowledge and actually pay attention Try to teach a class about McDonald's profit margins per burger and Apple on an iPhone and then teach the exact same class talking about widgets. I promise you the former will lead to higher test scores because the visualization isn't forced.