Class-time is a minority of the learning time. The basic idea is to gain a basic familiarization before class, then (during class) hopefully have the professor explain the same ideas in a different way and provide an opportunity to ask clarifying questions. Assignments should be structured to illustrate the concepts and encourage reaching a bit past what was taught. You shouldn't be doing the bulk of the learning in the classroom itself, IMO. Homework is for you. Tests are a final feedback of the result of the learning process.

I guess my point is that learning in the "off-hours" is kind of the intention (and is part of the best-case scenario, as described above). 2 hours of lecture implies 4 hours (or more) of extra work, done outside of the classroom, on your own or with others. School should provide structure and guidance to learning (providing a schedule, and an appropriate order of concepts to learn). Learning itself is a separate process.

I think this is the root problem. The structure never seemed right. It didn't assist with learning as it was never the appropriate topics at the appropriate time. Once you get away from college learning is so much easier as you are not dependent on the linear timeline set out by someone else. And because you're actually learning, which is one of the most pleasurable things going, you are excited to keep reaching for more. College fosters none of that.

I understand that learning on your own time is part of the package, but the problem, which I may not have effectively communicated, is that you are still left learning the 'wrong way' as you still have to stick with the course requirements while also trying to learn the 'right way' because that is the only way you are going to learn anything at all. As it is, two hours of lecture is two hours that could have been spent actually learning instead of wasting time.

If you are smart, I am sure that none of this is a problem and the structure of the courses are most likely to your benefit. But for someone who is stupid like me, it just doesn't work. Literally everyone can learn. Not everyone is smart.

> As it is, two hours of lecture is two hours that could have been spent actually learning instead of wasting time.

The most wasted lectures that I attended were the ones that I went to, but did something else instead of asking questions. There aren't many situations where you've got a roomful of people at your level or above (including an expert in the subject) that you can pose questions to.

> But for someone who is stupid like me, it just doesn't work.

Where did you get the idea that you're stupid? I don't see any evidence of that, and thinking of yourself that way is going to damage any of your efforts. Stupid people aren't generally the kinds that come onto HackerNews to have discussions about the nature of education.

While I understand the value of that in theory, in practice the questions are not available at the time the room is. This makes it mostly worthless. I understand people like you have minds that work in a different way, and that you are able to thrive in that environment. I don't want to minimize the benefit to someone like you, but you must also realize that not everyone is like you.

> Where did you get the idea that you're stupid?

Too stupid for college. I don't know if anyone is truly stupid in every way. Everyone has their speciality.

I would suggest that, given how hard education is pushed in the US that there is a reason that the attainment rate is still just ~30% for four or more year programs and ~40% for two or more year programs: Because most people simply are not capable of thriving in that environment.

I don't see that as a problem though. There are many ways to skin the cat. College doesn't need to be for everyone, and it is faulty logic to think that we should push it on everyone. Especially to those in jail who, statistically, are likely among the group that are not suited for it in the first place.

I do agree that we should do more to enable learning for those people. But, again, learning is not the same thing as college.

I think "stupid" is the wrong word there; too many other connotations. And I think that the root issue would be something different: A learning style order/pace that's a bad match for the one common to classroom learning, if the specific professor teaches using just one or two methods to convey the information, etc.

I'm doing well professionally, but there was a certain mismatch between my learning style and the classroom teaching style. I made it work for me in the end, though.

The lectures themselves weren't that useful to me, although learning to interpret the pattern of confusion was invaluable (like looking at a code diff, where it doesn't tell you what the problem is, just what the difference is). Often, even the textbooks weren't (another exercise in pattern matching, and comparing with other sources). I spent a lot of time learning the material in my own way, then learning the mapping between my understanding and the way that it was being taught in class.

The topics in class acted as a decent map of the "tech tree" involved in the pile of topics to study, and a possibly-appropriate order to learn them in.

Everyone thinks differently. Do you have a more efficient idea an "expert" to convey a large number of concepts to a large group of people? What's your preferred method of learning?

Learning from folks who did well in college means they may think everyone will do well if they repeat their experience. Which is a far cry from 'teacher'. Heck, its not even 'expert'.

The majority of people in general are too stupid for college, and criminals that get caught tend to lean towards the dumb end.