>>13442670>maybe if you study something non-falsifiable or based on sophistry. when facets about the subject can be "right" or "wrong," That's still how some parts of the sciences are. Something written in the book as true could possibly be proven false tomorrow. However, even in the cases of the sciences, you're better reading books yourself and referring other relate material when you're having problems. Your brain develops more strongly that way.
>it helps to have an expert who can point that out, so you don't trick yourself into thinking some misunderstanding you've made is correct. Usually misunderstands come from misreading things, not rereading things precisely, using too few reference works, or poor reading comprehension. Usually undergraduate books are written clearly enough that if you should be reading it, you should be able to understand it and there are often exercises which you can practice and if you can't do them, then you know you misunderstood something. The need of the person you imagine to be an expert (who just knows what's in the book and likely doesn't even do research in the field even if he does) is not needed.
>it is simply unreasonable to expect a university to be able to train you for any particular job on the market.It's interesting you say that because that's exactly what certain degrees such as an accounting degree or certain engineering programs do. Though you have committed a strawman since I'm saying it's better most of the time to do things yourself in your free time than it is to waste time at a university unless it's the only place you're going to get exposure to certain training you want to have like the training in labwork you get from classes with hands on labwork or something else along the line. I'm also pointing out how the reality of a university degree--bachelors, masters, or phd--is primarily to tick off a requirements box. I've said precisely what I meant. You misunderstood it because you misread it.
