[legacynl]

Although I get where you're coming from, I think you're taking a big risk by assuming you know everything there's to know already. The fact is that you can't know what you don't know. You could be dunning-kruggering yourself on a daily basis and there's no way for you to know.

> These professors were academics. Google didn't exist yet. They, mostly, hadn't worked in any professional environment. They weren't pragmatic. They were slow perfectionists but also several years behind on the rest of the world.

Maybe you're blinded by your arrogance a bit, because there's an actual field of science dedicated to effective learning, teaching, practicing. Although it's great that you found something that worked for you, it doesn't mean that you've had the best or most optimal learning experience. Every teenager thinks they're smarter than their stupid dumb teachers, but they often aren't.

There's a reason why things are taught in a certain manner, and why there isn't that much change in that. It's because these methods have been tried and tested, and there's no need to chase each new framework, method or technology, because it's all built upon the old stuff anyway.

These courses are meant to give you a broad understanding of everything there is to know about computer science. Specifics change, but generics don't. If you know the generic things it doesn't matter what the specifics are.

[lupire]

This is going too far.

College lectures exist for two reasons: 1) because books didn't exist 2000 years ago, and 2) it's the only thing 1 teacher can do when stuck with more than 20 students at the same time.

Modern research shows how bad lectures are, but many colleges are still lectur focused because of tradition.