[th3byrdm4n]

>They may be uninteresting but much of a student’s college experience is reading uninteresting things.

Wow. What a revelatory statement.

Some reflecting observations. 1. Since when is an institution designed to increase your knowledge uninteresting?? That signals a broken institutional approach.

2. The number one real world skill is being able to filter for signal against noise.

If you're inserting a bunch of noise into the test, the most highly-adapted minds are going to be filtered out with low results.

[setr]

If you're learning something foundational, it's usually incredibly dull until after you've learned it. Its difficult to imagine anyone finds matrices, and associated basic operations, to be an interesting representation until after they've learned to make use of it to understand bigger ideas. Those first few lectures are horribly boring. And of course, undergrad is mostly foundational learning.

And then you should consider that at least in the US, you have 2 years of general education; that is, you have 2 years of courses outside the field you've explicitly decided liking.

And of course you can have a preference of practical over theory, where most lectures on theory are uninteresting unless they clearly lead up to a practical implication, that you're currently interested in.

It's absurd to imagine that anyone goes to college with a 100% interest in every course, unless the college caters directly to each student's whim. And we know they don't, and im not sure we want them to.