I have several concerns about the original article, but if the point of this guest post on Newport's blog is "look, I was able to grind through the MIT requirem

I have several concerns about the original article, but if the point of this guest post on Newport's blog is "look, I was able to grind through the MIT requirements in a year with reasonable success" it is not particularly damning that all the person achieved is a beginner's knowledge in several courses. Hopefully readers realize that this is not necessarily such a wonderful achievement while simultaneously respecting the effort made. My bigger concern is that the overt focus on "time-compressed" learning is that it will devolve to pure hucksterism with no attempt to move beyond anecdote to real research and thought as to how teaching (either by self-directed methods or to students in a traditional way) can be improved. People seem so interested in short-cuts. I personally want to an "efficient studier," but what I mostly mean is that I do not want to waste time using bad learning methods or materials. We do know that improvements in the learning process are out there - better books, spaced repetition for recall, better guidance and opportunity for early learners than they get in schools in subject-specific areas, etc. These types of posts along with my reading of immersive learning experiences (like your own math programs, dual language programs, "programming school" opportunities) has me thinking about the innate value that immersion offers to the learner. Would linear algebra learners be better off to spend 4 weeks focused on only that subject with a professor/mentor, a textbook, and deliberate practice than a single semester of normal lecture instruction?