> In all fairness, I don't think more time with an 'expert' would fill those gaps, I've personally observed several contradictions where the supposed expert fai

> In all fairness, I don't think more time with an 'expert' would fill those gaps, I've personally observed several contradictions where the supposed expert fails to perform as a result of incentives. Or, as a result of objectives? If the ‘expert’ in this regard knows the material well enough, then the objective and constraints seem relevant. When you are referring to an expert, what is the context? An expert teacher for a class maintains different skill set from an expert tutor. One on one time with an expert tutor does help tremendously, but realistic goals have to be determined. I made my way through undergrad and grad school as a private tutor for math from elementary school to math majors. The student’s objective, time scale, and current state determine how thorough a tutor can be. >The trouble these students are having is primarily because they've been taught by rote(authority and dynamics based in Marxism), instead of by rational first principles. It’s infected most publicly funded education. Yes, but the Marxism aside makes little sense here. Crudely quantifying education outcomes into metrics and making the teachers responsible to said metrics is a primary reason for rote learning (i.e., teaching to the test). The ideas which inspire this type of metricizing come from Taylorism and Fordism, both of which are American schools of thought.