I am always astonished by the range of people who claim their college degree was useless, citing rote memorization and bad classes. I had an entirely different experience and so did most people I know. University gave me the opportunity to talk to world-class researchers during office hours, to discuss ideas with my peers and have them either validated or critiqued by experts. Sure, all the information is available online (which is a miracle into itself) but without frequent contact with professors and mentors I wouldn’t have even known where to look or what existed in the field. University, for me, was a place where I was apprenticing full-time under highly experienced people, surrounded by people my age who also were doing the same. Years of self-teaching didn’t get me anywhere close to what a few semesters of expert mentorship got me. I never felt I had to memorize anything: exams consisted of system design or long programming projects or optimization challenges. I loved it, and I’m not sure if people went to different universities or just didn’t take advantage of the opportunities presented to them.

> … world-class researchers …

These people can’t possibly be at every university, let alone colleges, community colleges, or technical schools.

> … rote memorization and bad classes …

Not every school will be good. There are at least three post-secondary schools within driving of me that take the minimum required curricula as a script and offer nothing more than the bare minimum required to get certification, accreditation, and receive that sweet state and federal budget money.

I can’t imagine how someone with a good or great post-secondary education is confused that this would be the situation for millions of students.

My experience has been there is no correlation between skill at teaching and skill at research; maybe the two are even anti-correlated. To some extent, this is an artifact of the selection process for professors, but I think it's partly because there's a real tradeoff between spending effort on research vs teaching.

In some cases, an excellent researcher even has cogent papers but is absolutely abysmal at lecturing and in person teaching skills.

Peers are very important, but from talking to others, it's harder to know where you will get good peers than you would think. Even 1st tier universities will have majors dominated by students whose primary interest is in maximum grades with minimum work and where cheating is rampant. You've got to either get lucky (I did) or put in some leg work to find smart students who are actually interested in learning and doing things right.

I think how much rote memorization is encouraged or required is strongly dependent on the field. Pre-med students will sometimes memorize their way through calculus; a professor I knew once described it as "grimly impressive".

Thank you; I feel similarly and wish I could go back as an adult to take even more advantage of all the incredible opportunities. Having four years to dedicate to learning new things in depth -- with zero pressure to take shortcuts so that the lessons become economically useful sooner -- was more of a privilege than I understood at the time.

And then of course, the people I met there have shaped my life and career in wonderful ways ever since. The sheer level of diversity among students and faculty is unlike anything I've experienced elsewhere. Many of them are still my lifelong friends (or in one case my wife :)) and others have opened professional doors to me 15 years later and counting.

But also, I went to a very well known and respected university with sufficient endowment and financial aid that it shouldn't be functioning as a "toll gate" regardless. I know things are not this rosy at a lot of universities.

Did you learn about selection bias in university? Maybe you went to a good one, but there are far, far more dogshit schools than good ones.

Just a few years ago my husband had all of his tuition refunded (and degree cancelled) because the school was so bad and so scammy that the government had to step in and force them to refund everyone.

The reality is that higher education in the USA is a for-profit venture, and like all for-profit ventures in the US, the number one explicit goal is to extract as much profit as possible by any means possible. Providing quality education and world-class faculty is completely disjoint and incompatible with that goal.

Most people in this country are not so privileged as you to attend one of our dwindling number of good schools. Everyone else has a predatory institution that technically meets the requirements to offer the degrees they claim. Usually, anyway.

> University gave me the opportunity to talk to world-class researchers during office hours

Neither world-class researchers or office hours exist in most Universities.

"Office hours" is entirely an American (and maybe British?) thing.

> or just didn’t take advantage of the opportunities presented to them.

It's this. Most undergraduate students do not go to office hours, try to get to know their instructors, ask follow-up questions, pursue independent research, or do anything approaching "apprenticeship". Most American students matriculate into college/uni not even having ingrained behaviors that make any of these things obvious or approachable, so yes, it's understandable why many would consider higher ed the same as secondary ed: rote memorization and "bad" classes.