>>11465991Attending is largely a waste of time since 95% of the learning is autodidactical, at a desk studying the text book. Lectures are useful for broad generalisations of chapters and worked problems but they're a guide more than anything.
Honestly, considering that the ultimate point of university is accreditation for knowledge in a particular area, they're vastly more expensive than they ought to be. When you sit a driving exam, you pay the fee and "sit the test". Assuming you've already undergone all the necessary and required training, you will be judged entirely on your competency and issued a licence if you are worthy or not.
Why is it not possible to enact a similar procedure with higher education? You won't pass the exams unless you're informed, and the institute can issue a list of recommended readings and study materials essential to passing - so so long as you're well versed in those literatures you shouldn't have an issue getting your degree. This could cut the cost down of $30 - 80,000 down to a thousand or two, and refocus the role of lecturers to the more appropriate classification of tutors.
