Was he right?

You can learn STEM the same way, so it makes no sense.

I don't know, Its much easier to get STEM objectively wrong than Humanities desu.

Thats what makes STEM actually easier to learn independently. You can assess yourself whether you're getting things wrong.

People studying humanities on their own end up as Lolbertarians and level seven Atheists because they have no one to direct them

>People studying humanities on their own end up as Lolbertarians and level seven Atheists because they have no one to direct them

Well that hit close to home.

The difference being the professors in the MIT lecture series are better than the ones I had in college. They will also respond to you if it's timely enough and you write polite and academic sounding queries. It isn't all that different from the 500 person lectures I attended at UNI, where the only interaction I had with the professor was via email or because I physically camped in front of his door to ambush him.

STEMfags get some ridiculous notion that they are capable of speaking on any subject, same with humanitiesfags

It is disgusting, they need to stay in their lanes. Listening to pseuds like Tyson and Nye talk shit about philosophy is about as enlightening as Ken Hamm lecturing on natural history

I still think uni evaluations are poor evaluations of learned knowledge. They do evaluate sort of well for the purposes of "did you fucking generate backup arguments for my entire career's thesis, or not, you little prick?" and for the purposes of evaluating how useful you will be as a worker.

> implying that's not how university works

> If you have some better/more efficient method to test how competent thousands of students are then please enlighten us.

Yeah, anything but the "attendence is 5%!" and "class participation is 5%." I'm sorry, but pr

Eh...Some profs are obviously dumb and worthless but there are others who do relatively well and you encounter their work and take their courses and wonder what the fuck they're on about. Not because it's difficult or obscure, but because it's fucking nothing. You begin to realize that some profs just got ahead finding a niche topic that no one had written about. They're not smart, they just found a way to never really leave campus.

huh, you know I didn't think about it that way.

nah, accreditation means something still (even if its value is being diminished every year)

accreditation is the only thing, there's little point outside accreditation and this is becoming more and more clear

and i dont think it has always been like this, it's getting worse and partly the students and partly the universities' fault. no doubt incoming students have shortened attention spans and (at least older) professors are noticing