comment: >
context: Couldn't disagree more. Most classes I took, I didn't have to look at the textbook once because of how robust the lessons were. >
  
  I also had a good experience. I had two or three bad profs, but overall the vast majority were excellent. The readings complimented the lesson. They were talking higher level concepts, using the readings as reference. >
  
  Any class where i felt reading through the textbook was absolutely necessary, I felt was justified in being so. There was just no way a teacher could make a lesson that approached the concept in the same way. A couple examples being Anatomy and Physiology, especially when learning bones and muscles, and Intro to Python. >
  
  Sounds like you go to a shitty uni >
  
  Honestly, most colleges are like that. The schools that focus on productive learning are usually exclusivist (Ivy leagues, Montessori etc). You get what you pay for, basically. >
  
  This is a result of taxpayer-subsidized financial aid. >
  
  
  giving schools more resources to work with lowers quality of service
  
  What a take. Incredible. Typical lolbert brainrot >
  
  When those "more resources" translates to funding for the Assistant Associate Dean of Southeast Asian Transgender Studies, yes, it lowers the overall quality of education.
  Taxpayer-subsidized financial aid isn't funding academic faculty, it's funding administrative bloat. >
  
  
  When those "more resources" translates to funding for the Assistant Associate Dean of Southeast Asian Transgender Studies, yes, it lowers the overall quality of education.
  
  Cringe. 
  You should reference "underwater basket weaving degrees" next. We already know how unoriginal you are >
  
  It's really up to the professor. I usually asked students in classes above for recommendations on which courses to take and from which professors. Not always possible to act on the advice but it helped a lot. The profs who love teaching make reputations for themselves in the student body.
  Not to say that the university system is perfect.. far from it. >
  
  There's a miscommunication about how college works. People think the professor's job is to teach you everything you need to know, when in reality it's more like they guide you through the material and it's your responsibility to make sure you learn it. Lots of students don't understand that and so they do poorly in school. >
  
  If the professor's job is only to guide, then I don't think 60-hours-in-class courses are needed. How does "guiding through the material" need that much time?