IMO, most courses are shortcuts to actual experience, and there are no shortcuts to such things. One might describe this as Education vs. Learning. I do agree

IMO, most courses are shortcuts to actual experience, and there are no shortcuts to such things. One might describe this as Education vs. Learning. I do agree with the general-case argument that Education (vs Learning) is largely a filter for conformity (and socioeconomic status). However, depending on the job (and company) you're applying for, conformity may or may not be a desirable trait. I recall an after-dinner conversation with a CEO and some VC's who said their favorite (illegal) interview question was "Have you ever been arrested? If so, for what?". Answering in the negative or pleading the 5th was a hard pass (as were stupid and/or egregious crimes) - they wanted people who were direct, honest, and took (calculated) risks. The typical college student is conditioned to avoid risk - memorizing/cheating/etc to get the highest GPA, or at least making sure they get the credits required to graduate. Pick the project idea that you know you can do in a week (okay, a weekend), pick the uncontroversial/uninteresting subject for your paper, etc. - just keep your head down and pass the class. Often, this seems to translate into people who can't program their way out of a FOR loop (or whatever the appropriate metaphor is for their field), solve new problems, or create new products. Inside-the-box thinking is great for passing standardized tests but somewhat less great for innovation. At that point, your four-point-whatever GPA and the two semesters you spent as the Deputy Assistant Vice Co-President of the Student Navelgazing Council are really just reasons to mock you after you've left the interview. Maybe the HR department of a dusty institution with those upload-and-re-type-your-resume-style portals will care, but I've never met a recruiter, hiring manager, or staff engineer that did. On the other hand, I've met people without CS degrees who have clearly put in the effort and know what they're talking about. A prior CTO once remarked that he had more respect for open source contributions and Coursera courses than he did for people who only had a degree to show. All a degree indicated, he said, was that their parents could afford to send them to college. Also, I don't mean to disparage extracurriculars with my above comment, but there's a similar phenomenon there, too: people who sign up for some club or organization just to pad their resume are less impressive than people who have developed some degree of skill in non-trivial hobbies. It demonstrates that you're capable of developing yourself on multiple levels rather than simply checking as many boxes as your parents will pay for. TL;DR I'd say you're far from naive if you're striving to learn and understand rather than recite and recall. You might get fewer wins when you punch above your weight class, but you'll be better in the end for doing it, especially when stacked up against people who never got off the metaphorical couch.