> Outside of possibly a small handful of fields (computer programming), we don't know how many people can actually learn an academic subject in any depth on the

> Outside of possibly a small handful of fields (computer programming), we don't know how many people can actually learn an academic subject in any depth on their own. I'm not sure solitary self-learning is the only type of learning consistent with a disrupting higher education. If technology is to drive change here, I'd argue that a plurality of competing education/learning resources or services from which an individual can cater their choices to their own needs is what would be aimed for (or at least likely). > I wouldn't hire someone based on their credentials alone. On the other hand, a person who gets through the "weeder" courses in engineering or the physical sciences at the state university, but is outright faking it, would be a black swan event, not worth planning for. I agree. However, to my point about cultural perception, which I believe plays a large role in the state of higher education, what happens when higher education if universally seen as mostly "weeding"? Are the costs, inconveniences, cultural hegemonies/hangups/snobberies desirable and worth it?