During my "learning" life I have been in both sides; in different fields but definitely in both sides. While I have learn most of my knowledge in the university (2 undergrads, 2 masters and finishing a phd) there have been other topics besides CS, mechanical engineering, statistics,... that were interesting to me. Sports and nutrition being the most important, and I have never had any mentor or taking any course on them.
In the University the education has to be focused on teaching what is needed, not what an individual wants to learn. I did not like databases, but I took 2 db courses. I did not like compilers but I took 1 course just focused on this topic. And both topics are useful, and somebody working on CS need to know its basics. This cannot (and should not) be decided by an individual sorely based on his interest or needs. A basic layer of knowledge is decided by experts on the field that consider that ANY xxxx (put here whatever career you want) must have.
What I felt in the fields I am an autodidact is basically a huge lack of basic knowledge. How am I supposed to decide whether the book A is better than the book B for the topic I am trying to learn? Do I need to know something before getting into this other topic? How I decide the path I need to follow to reach a certain knowledge? Those questions are (almost) always solved with somebody guiding you through the process of learning.
There is something that has always shocked me: is that most autodidacts cannot accept that their education might be partial and the lack of base (generalizing here) might affect their adaptation for new projects or their speed on learning new techniques.
Following the structure of a university in careers like CS or engineering should be a must, and new methods of education are stepping on the learning process by helping autodidacts to be directed into a clear path of what-is-needed.
> How am I supposed to decide whether the book A is better than the book B for the topic I am trying to learn? Do I need to know something before getting into this other topic? How I decide the path I need to follow to reach a certain knowledge? Those questions are (almost) always solved with somebody guiding you through the process of learning.
I'm 3 years into a software engineering degree and in all honesty, I'm doing it for the piece of paper. Last semester, I attended about 10% of the classes, studied by myself and still managed to get good grades. I wouldn't recommend it to people who aren't passionate about the subject though.
One thing I hate about the 2 universities I went to (Montreal, Hong Kong) is that many teachers (un)knowingly discriminate against students who don't attend classes. This often takes the form of giving hints about the exam during tutorials, giving privileged information about which topics will be evaluated and which won't. In Hong Kong, I have even seen teachers give participation grades or require a minimum class attendance in order to pass (this happened in computer engineering/science!).
Precisely my point here (as I mention in the last paragraph) is that knowledge is becoming widely available and new ways of learning are arising.
You are no longer an autodidact and you are studying the topics the college is telling you to follow. Some of them you would have never consider if you were to chose, some others you would. But in the "high level" (and probably in the future) you would appreciate the starting point that college has given you.
PS: I agree completely with you regarding attending to classes, even though I would have homeworks/exams to help retention of the material.
In the University the education has to be focused on teaching what is needed, not what an individual wants to learn. I did not like databases, but I took 2 db courses. I did not like compilers but I took 1 course just focused on this topic. And both topics are useful, and somebody working on CS need to know its basics. This cannot (and should not) be decided by an individual sorely based on his interest or needs. A basic layer of knowledge is decided by experts on the field that consider that ANY xxxx (put here whatever career you want) must have.
What I felt in the fields I am an autodidact is basically a huge lack of basic knowledge. How am I supposed to decide whether the book A is better than the book B for the topic I am trying to learn? Do I need to know something before getting into this other topic? How I decide the path I need to follow to reach a certain knowledge? Those questions are (almost) always solved with somebody guiding you through the process of learning.
There is something that has always shocked me: is that most autodidacts cannot accept that their education might be partial and the lack of base (generalizing here) might affect their adaptation for new projects or their speed on learning new techniques.
Following the structure of a university in careers like CS or engineering should be a must, and new methods of education are stepping on the learning process by helping autodidacts to be directed into a clear path of what-is-needed.