But we have machines for that? Data access and repetition in itself is worthless. Refinement, and gaining new data from old recipes is the actual value. Why construct a machine, that basically selects for the wrong value, creating a reproduction academia, instead of a innovation academia. Why weed out what was your original value proposition? It seems very strange.

Because they don’t believe in the value proposition they’re selling. Instead of forming students into high quality output they’re taking in students and pushing out anything but already high quality students.

The need to have seen something before a class to have a chance at passing it well is fundamentally wrong.

Absorbing and applying knowledge fast is a requirement for surviving in academia. Having classes that weed people out is not a bad thing. That's what I was saying - I don't see how this is pure reproduction, this is novel application of existing ideas. That's how innovation can start.

Nah, I don’t buy this at all.

I’ve never been a fast knowledge absorber, but that just meant I required a bit more time on my own, struggling with the content. Still managed to get max grades at undergrad university (didn’t go further because, well money). Also never stopped me from excelling in all work positions so far in life. If anything, a bit of struggle helps you go deep, and deep is much more valuable than fast but shallow (in my opinion).

Not professional advice, YMMV etc.

I did have classmates that operated like this, but they all failed out. Perhaps it depends on the university :)

Rude. I was never below the top 1-2% of students in my classes (quarter of a century ago now, getting old). Depending on when you graduated, I’d hazard a guess that my course work was at least as challenging, if not more so. I don’t really have any insecurities about my intelligence, but I’ve also lived long enough to realise that intelligence is just like being pretty. It’s nice; you get stuff for free, but you didn’t earn it in any way. It doesn’t make me “better” than others, just lucky.

And I’m also old enough to realise that it’s starting to slowly decline and won’t be getting any better. Fluid intelligence that is. Good thing I went deep over my career, because that depth can’t be replaced by the younger set with their superior fluid intelligence. Knowledge, experience, and dare I say it, a bit of wisdom. Struggling a bit to really understand things has served me well in life.

> but it does serve to weed out the folks that can't pick things up very fast.

I do not believe that is a desired goal or outcome. Why eliminate people who learn thoroughly but slowly?

I agree it’s horrible to discriminate on personality types.

As a counterpoint, though: in software jobs, the ability to pick up things fast is commercially valuable. As a hiring manager, if school grades helped me identify extremely smart folks who pick up things fast, then those grades are a useful tool.

Not all jobs are the same, however, and so other hiring managers might set a lower bar for grades. But it’s important that we have these tools, in addition to the various other ways we evaluate candidates.

> I think that is one of the goals of high-level schooling.

But it really shouldn't be, except after every effort to accompany people who struggle more has been made