So in order to understand something, you need to a.) and then b.) have someone tell you how to think about what you read? While paying them? You can't wrestle with deep and complex topics unless someone tells you how to think?

Not at all, but having someone who can provide context sure helps with a lot of works - often these works are building on centuries or millennia of thought that they may assume you're aware of and that help place the arguments.

Again I ask, given that textbooks exist, can you make the argument that STEM is any different?

As a STEM major at a large public university, my classmates and I decided that at a meta-level, STEM majors learned how to learn new and complicated things quickly in order to get good grades in classes. Also, as a STEM major, I found attending class less than helpful most of the time. I do remember spending quite a lot of time in either a computer lab or in the library fighting my way through problems. Math, physics, chem, programming. Attending lectures was largely someone regurgitating either slides or a textbook.

I assumed this was true for most people in STEM majors in college, no?

> STEM majors learned how to learn new and complicated things quickly in order to get good grades in classes.

That's a skill that the liberal arts pick up as well.

> I do remember spending quite a lot of time in either a computer lab or in the library fighting my way through problems.

Will did that all on his own, without the need for a college. You're also describing a technical institute.

I don't see any skills there that really require a university either.

I didn't realize we were in violent agreement. I posted a fun quote from a movie I like that was relevant to the parent. You replied with a touch of snark and I felt compelled to defend myself from your comment. And now here we are. Heh.