Yes. This is mainly because of 2 reasons:

1. Things actually get more complicated

2. Most of your "teachers" know a lot less about teaching than your school teachers, because they never had formal training in teaching. However, there are some lecturers who are natural talents.

The second point is why you have to do more work to actually learn a topic. Your lecturer won't meet you halfway, but you have to get a lot closer to them to grasp their explanations.

Formal teaching training never made a bad teacher good.

From that article:

> however, when qualified by IQ and reading levels, Strategy Instruction (SI) had better effects for the high IQ group.

Which only goes to show that being a great teacher is an impossible mission, and it's wonderful how many succees at it despite the difficulty.

DI is rarely used to train teachers, unfortunately, and even if it were, the education-government complex designs school procedures and discipline rules that would make it very hard to implement.

I always thought the real reason was that the cadence of the lessons more closely matched what is possible for a person of average or above intelligence who was motivated to learn. The rate at which information is taught to children in school is kept at a low level because most of the students are not motivated to learn the subjects and instead need to be guided to learn those specific subjects.

The example I was always given for this was the rate at which those same "non-gifted" students would learn subjects they actually care about--like dinosaurs or sports facts. Kids will soak that information up and spend tons of time learning more, but it just isn't useful. Instead we force them to spend less times on those subjects they love and guide them into things society views as more important.

For me things got much better when I got to uni. In high school I didn’t care about most of the subjects, but at uni I was studying what I had chosen for myself.