We had the task of building a highly insulated small house. Big enough to hold a hot cup of tea (and meassure how good it holds its temperature inside).

Our design was very, very good in that regard. (I used insulation building material from the house my family build at that time) But granted, it was not so pretty.

But that was not a stated goal. But when it came to grades, suddenly design and subjective aesthetics mattered and a pretty house, but useless in terms of insulation won. And we did not failed, but got kind of a bad result and I stopped believing in that teachers fairness.

I mean, the other side of the coin is that engineering schools are a giant circle jerk that churn out thousands of graduates every year who if left to their own devices will design things that cannot be made out of inputs and using processes that are not appropriate.

I'm not saying you gotta prioritize looks but you gotta think a few steps ahead and understand what the ancillary criteria that will make or break a design all else being equal, or nearly equal are or what the unstated assumptions of the party evaluating your work (e.g won't look like ass, can be made in volume, etc.) are.

The main design goals were:

- construct a house with good insulation

No word of it being pretty. Houses should look pretty, but it wasn't art class, but physics. And the physics teacher clearly said insulation is the goal (so we learn about the concept).

We had a funtional house (roof, walls, windows, door) with very good insulation. The winning house just looked pretty and its insulation was basically nonexistent.

I get that, and think that "pretty" is a dumb goal because what's "pretty" is usually just cargo culting of whatever works. But I think reading your customer is a useful lesson, but probably should be taught intentionally not accidentally via bad teaching.

The irony is that you learned something. Failure is a very useful learning opportunity in understanding what affects the success of an experiment, so long as you analyse it and demonstrate that, which arguably is where you should have been encouraged and graded. Compared to accidentally succeeding while following a standard procedure.

I write learning software, and this is an interesting pedagogical weakness we've become aware of when giving feedback (the asymmetry of learning opportunity in correct vs incorrect). It can be improved through overall design, and in a digital context there are also other opportunities.

Yes he learned to avoid physics. Good job teacher!

Well, yes unfortunately, but the takeaway should be scepticism of the validity of learning institutions, something most of us aren't prepared to even consider at a younger age.

> scepticism of the validity of learning institutions

Can confirm, this is solidly wedged into my opinions now. There were a lot of other experiences after this to compound that feeling.

In High School, I started looking aggressively for a less traditional path and fortunately found one. It really saved me, because I was forced back into the traditional environment in Senior year of high school, and my grades tanked from top-of-class to "you might need summer school to graduate" level

Things got a lot better in college, because that experience (among others) helped me effectively navigate the institution, jump directly into more advanced coursework, and earn more freedom to study things that were interesting to me.

I did get a job in my field out of college. So, my college pedigree was useful practically (though not really any knowledge I got there). But, I'm self-taught dev now, which is an amazing fit for my experience and attitude.

That’s awful honestly, did you ever regain that interest in physics later in life?

No, indeed I found a way to skip physics in high school (though this wasn't really why). But, I was interested in Biology, taking almost enough for a minor in it in college.

I'm a self-taught dev now. And, that fits really well for me, despite being completely unrelated to my college degrees. I work mostly with other self-taught, passionate about software people. And I'm loving that.

But, I do have very strong opinions on institutions and pedagogy. I've gotten into some pretty epic arguments about it with my wife, who is a music teacher. And, her experience has been so completely opposite of mine.

From the way she tells it, classical music seems to be the ultimate discipline where structured education is paramount. And, I have such a negative opinion of traditional methods that it's caused some friction.