In my opinion studying is similar to bodybuilding, good results are achieved only with repetition. You will not get big muscles just by going to gym and sitting there watching women do their stuff.
and neither one is a 4-year (or 90-day) program: it's something you do every day. What's that saying, it's not about the destination, it's about the journey... I learn new things and get stronger every day.
It is only good that we are all not highly educated, as we need someone to do the cleaning or to drive the garbage truck.
I've had so-called "professional" jobs (or co-ops/interns, as I'm still a youngin') and I've had so-called "crap" minimum-wage jobs like digging up old natural gas lines and amusement ride operator. I find being stuck in an office boring, and would much rather be playing in the dirt or watching hot chicks scream their heads off while singing over the PA.
I would say I learned more working one summer in a machine shop than any quarter at university. Even stuff related to the EE major, for example I spent two weeks installing and testing 10HP motors into new assemblies vs. a 1-quarter long class on "rotating machinery"... learned all sorts of theory and different types of machines, but all we played with in the lab were DC machines and 1/3 HP SCIMs. All knowledge is valuable... I just feel most students are missing out on the "big picture".
For example: portable electronics are becoming a huge part of our lives, yet most EE programs don't yet have any good courses on batteries. This a big problem! I've been racing both electric and nitromethane R/C cars for years, and have a passing knowledge of NI-MH cells (at least, a few tricks on how to get as much voltage as possible while sometimes pulling a few hundred amps during a 4 or 5 minute race). But a lot of EE *professors* think a battery is just a magic metal box that produces electricity by it's own volition; bulky .8 a/h ni-cads were high tech the last time they looked! Or, should batteries be left as black magic known only to mad chemists at sanyo and panasonic?
And R.E. Mr. Wolfram, last time I mentioned
Mathematica
as a CAS that was exactly the response I got.
But where's their reasoning for discovery-based learning and simulation software? They point to an "innate desire to learn," and trash "hopeless" kids who are "video addicts," but they don't really provide any reasoning that would suggest that discovery-based learning via simulations will work any better for these kids than the dirty, evil rewards-based software did.
Keep in mind they are in the business of selling
Mathematica
. Why not answer the last question posed by the "skeptical bystander"... I don't think there is an answer to that one.