[win311fwg]

> but my base assumption is that there are fields and topics everybody has gaps in and this is normal.

Absolutely. Which is why we've built a society where helping others close those gaps is natural and considered to be part of a life-long process. Again, it is great that you are playing your part, but you'd be doing the same if you were standing beside someone on an assembly line. It is not clear what the significance of university is, unless you are simply biased by it being central to much of your experience?

> it is more free than school education. [...] If someone has gaps they should get the feeling that they know what to work on and not hit a brick wall and shatter.

Which is why youth life doesn't end at school. In fact, school is supposed to be just a small part of that existence. We encourage them to do things like babysit young children, get jobs, etc. where hitting a wall and shattering is plain unacceptable and even catastrophic. This forces them to quickly get up to speed on how to learn and feeling like they can learn when things get real.

It is inevitable that someone will end up living a completely sheltered life and miss out on those fundamentals, but compelling them to first un-shelter themselves is what university entrance requirements are for. If you are regularly seeing students both sheltered and accepted into university, our fundamental assumptions about university have broken down and we need to step back. You working hard to offer a bandaid is noble, but not a good solution.

[atoav]

I guess in my case it has to do with the aspect that I am teaching Media Technology and Electronics in an Art university. The students studying here are the 5% that made it through the selection process, but math and physics aren't typically a big part of that.

Meaning it is kind of like teaching a language in a engineering school: sure it is needed, but you can't just go all hardline on your requirements if you teach that class, otherwise you're going to lose everybody, because someone who studied engineering may have done so precisely with the background that they were bad with languages during school.

Same here. Art students are generally not the abstract maths type (although there are exceptions). My goal is to teach them at least that maths can be a very good tool in their belt if they want to know how things will work out before put into reality.

I still try to demand a lot of the students and they will certainly leave better educated than they entered. I just have to do it more in a boil-the-frog-way, presenting math as a way that allows us to avoid having to do unnecessary work or spend unnecessary money. This works pretty well.

I could of course also do it like my predecessor and just do a lecture on the physics of light, writing down equations nobody will understand and then have 90% fail and curse at my existence. But I don't really see the point of why I would want to do that in terms of the outcome.

[win311fwg]

That is what I am getting at: Your circumstantial situation of working in a university is not the driver of your actions. If you were working on the assembly line at a factory and noticed those standing beside you lacked some kind of knowledge, you would equally work with them to fill in their gaps. That is the person who you are. The reality is that education happens everywhere, all the time.

Perhaps what you are trying to get at is that those who identify as students in a university are generally already open to learning? It is unlikely they would be there otherwise. Whereas of the people on the assembly line, only some will accept you trying to teach them something. Fair to say that the reality is also that not everyone wants to learn.