[rosspackard]

So you are arguing that weak foundations are one of the greatest sources of problematic learning outcomes. And yet you are advocating for a system that produces those poor foundations and learning outcomes. I just don't understand why you are so hung up on university/school/establishment dictated 'core/prereq' classes as being defined as the foundation.

I would argue that the current pre-req system is responsible. It lumps a full class as a pre-req. And someone can pass a full class while not understanding pieces of it. Those pieces could be the essential ones needed for the specialty knowledge a person pursues. If instead of saying generally, this requires a 200 level linear algebra course and instead enumerated the topics from that course that were necessary than people would know the foundation that is needed. You saying that 'fluency' is required in some broad course is intellectual elitism.

"I see the pursuit of quick and shallow ways of learning advanced subjects"

Also in what way is clearly defined prerequisite knowledge 'shallow'. And where is this coming from:

"People who only ever search for the quick secret trick to learning X"

You are injecting biases into this debate that weren't there in the first place to make it seem like I am advocating some kind of get rich scheme for learning things. I am actually advocating clearer and more descriptive knowledge ontologies. This would allow for better learning efficiency and overall may benefit the field. People would be able to spend more time on depth in the field they want to pursue.

Also using 'never' in an argument is a habit you need to break. It is hyperbolic and usually trivial to find counter examples.