comment: >
  
  
  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
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.