[rocksteady88]

I've been in school for 5 years now with a major in finance and only have one more semester to go, but if their is anything I have taken from college it is the fact that I think it's geared more towards getting things done rather than actually fully learning anything. I can get an A on almost any test you throw at me, but after summer break only remember fragments if I don't study it on my own over the break.

I work and go to school at the same time so I'm limited on how much time I have for study, but I learn at a fairly decent rate and am very resourceful. I cannot for the life of me figure out how a slow learner would ever make through college. If you need time you're already behind.

[sircockburn]

I actually learn concepts very rapidly - in fact, most classes are miserable for me because I'm always jumping way ahead.

What I suck at, however, is rote memorization. If there's no conceptual thread or logic behind something, my brain acts like a bouncer and says "WHY DO YOU NEED TO STORE THIS IN HERE? NO."

Of course, I have to FORCE the rote information in, which causes it to break, and I find myself scrambling to piece it together during the exam.

It's called ADHD.

---------- Post added 01-27-2012 at 07:30 PM ----------

I'm an Accounting major. I aced all the classes that were based on LOGIC and the FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS (whereas everyone else tried to memorize everything and failed)....but in my higher level courses, there are suddenly a bunch of arbitrary exceptions, illogical rules, and procedures based on politics rather than logic.

So, I'm lucky to get an F rather than a Z- in those classes.

[Paul Siraisi]

I think college only really works for most people as an orientation to any specific field of expertise, giving a few bits and pieces to take to grad school, or a job, where the real learning happens--textbooks are always there for reference later, too.

That's no doubt part of the theory behind liberal arts schools, which require courses in a wide range of subjects beyond the chosen major. At such an early stage in life, anything that sticks to the wall could end up being somehow useful, and since most of it will slide off, best to throw a wide variety at it.

[Sean O]

Slow learners can make it through college with hard work and determination. Fast learners can flunk out of college with a lack thereof.

[Haumea]

	I'm an Accounting major.

As an NT, I would never ever major in something like Accounting. Anything where memorization/conceptualization ratio is too high, you lose all natural advantage.

[MrFlaneur]

	Originally Posted by Haumea To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As an NT, I would never ever major in something like Accounting. Anything where memorization/conceptualization ratio is too high, you lose all natural advantage.

True, very true. Eg Maths vs Chemistry. Maths - if you know what all the symbols on a calculator it means you're a mathematician(ish). Beautiful elegant and simplistic.

Chemistry - rote rote rote. Chemical equations, molecular formulas, no room for creativity. Boils down to liquid or gas in a container...they all look the same to me, so what.

Good post.

[afriend]

College is a huge waste of time. It is simply a piece of paper at the end of several years sojourn proving that you have read some twenty odd books, committed to memory some factitious standard answers demanded by the university in question for a period of time required to regurgitate it without critical thought into an exam paper.

College is disappointing, sad and highly disconnected from reality. There are however, some exceptionally intelligent and marvellous people in there who could really make it big in the corporate world and I struggle to understand why they would ever want to be academics.

Slow learners are mostly the fault of teachers. A strong foundation is required to understand higher concepts and teaching methodology should also differ according to how an individual take in information (i.e. MBTI -> S vs N). Personally, (I assume u meant slow learners in tutorials or lectures, holding it back) I skip lectures and tutorials if they are exceptionally dumb... read my textbook and do my own independent research on the concepts raised. Unfortunately, that often brought me to disagreement with the "standard answer" (i.e. Changes in Accounting Estimates)

DISCLAIMER My commentary can be very pedantic and esoteric.

[HIDE="Detour on Changes in Accounting Estimates"] I was taught on the University slide that according to the IFRS, it said that changes in Accounting Estimates do not require restatement of prior years financial statement. While it is technically correct in the regard that prior years financial statements should not be taken out and reworked, it is fundamentally wrong that they conveyed the idea that you do not need to do anything about it and said that one need only accrue changes to Equity.

In financial statement, the requirement of "Comparability" often require one to put a year or two for retrospective comparison. The relevant accounts in question must all be recalculated according to the new Accounting Estimate as if it has been so which essentially means a "restatement" of sorts.[/HIDE]

[HIDE="Detour & Disagreement on iNtuition as disadvantageous for Accounting"]

	Originally Posted by Haumea To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As an NT, I would never ever major in something like Accounting. Anything where memorization/conceptualization ratio is too high, you lose all natural advantage.

Actually, at the high levels, considering the population ratios of S to N, N are over represented, making up 61% of top level management in accounting industry.

I cite "Personality: What it takes to be an Accountant" from "The Accounting Educator's Journal Volume XVI 2006 pp. 119 - 128" and QUOTING

"The STJ type is dominant in business overall, but most in business do not rise to
upper management. Keirsey.com (2003) describes the ESTJ as the supervisor type and
the ISTJ as the inspector type. This appears to be a logical fit for the accountant/CPA.
The NT types are described as rational, with the ENTJ described as the fieldmarshall
type, and the INTJ as the mastermind type and may be a logical fit for upper
management. Schloemer and Schloemer (1997) found that 61 percent of CPA firm
partners have a preference for intuition over sensing while only 20 percent at the staff
level do. This may reflect the fact that partners need a broad perspective, must be able to
apply abstract reasoning, and utilize unstructured problem solving skills not needed at the
staff level. Additional research needs to be conducted to examine the personality type
differences, if any, between entry level accountants and those who rise to upper
management within public accounting."

The advantage of an S in audit is making sure everything is correct. The real importance of an audit in my personal opinion, is in an N, in which he/she asks "Everything checks out too well. What's the catch?"

I cite "A Note about the Effect of Auditor Cognitive Style on Task Performance" by Lori R. Fuller published in "Behaviorial Research in Accounting Volume 16, 2004 pp. 131-143".

Incidentally, I believe that the reports support that 'N' have less difficulty doing 'S' tasks as compared to 'S' doing 'N' tasks. However that being said, 'S' were better are doing 'S' tasks significantly as compared to 'N' at doing 'N' tasks in terms of the amount of mistakes made.[/HIDE]

[Fox]

Yes college is a waste of time. Who your daddy is or who daddy's ass your willing kiss can help more than college. You can always try to be extremely good at your job. College is important when you want to move up. No matter who you know without that piece of paper they can't move you up.

Despite all that propaganda that teachers care about learning and helping their students succeed many of them are just there for a pay check. In academia they might be more concerned with getting published than actually teaching. Ever read your professor's bio on a school's site? It will detail where they went to school and what papers they've gotten published. Do you ever see it mentioned the successful students that they've taught? Many of my classes they just phoned it in. Vast majority of your grade will have little to do with your ability to apply or explain knowledge in return. Instead your ability to recall facts for a multiple choice test gets you the grade.

[SongofSeptember]

	Originally Posted by Fox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes college is a waste of time. Who your daddy is or who daddy's ass your willing kiss can help more than college. You can always try to be extremely good at your job. College is important when you want to move up. No matter who you know without that piece of paper they can't move you up.

If you're in college for the piece of paper, then yes it is a waste of time. If you're in there for things like learning - that some might not be able to do outside of an institution - that necessarily take time, then...

Despite all that propaganda that teachers care about learning and helping their students succeed many of them are just there for a pay check. In academia they might be more concerned with getting published than actually teaching. Ever read your professor's bio on a school's site? It will detail where they went to school and what papers they've gotten published. Do you ever see it mentioned the successful students that they've taught? Many of my classes they just phoned it in. Vast majority of your grade will have little to do with your ability to apply or explain knowledge in return. Instead your ability to recall facts for a multiple choice test gets you the grade.

I sympathize with your point, but I rather think the bigger issue is that the vast majority of students who go into college with the kind of mentality expressed in your first paragraph (it's just a piece of paper). I mean, if that's the student's perspective, then who needs professors who can actually teach? Show me students who care about learning first. Then the quality of teachers as teachers starts to matter.

[Aboni]

I don't like memorizing, repeating and etc. I think college is boring, I'm not very clever but as for me slow learners is irritating me..Anyway that is only from my point of view..

[supernerd707]

Agree with Sean there.

I'm a slow learner, I do pretty well. Succeeding in college/uni is all about time management and motivation; I believe less of it has to do with 'natural talent.'

Fast/slow learning really has to do with the field you are studying in. I'm a science and humanities major and both subjects value certain types of learners more or less. Science classes value the fast learner more and humanities the slow learner.

Here's an example: A physics student who is a fast learner is probably someone who understands concepts of the "fundamental laws of nature" and, most importantly, the systems that underlie them. There are certain patterns and ways of thinking that make theories easy to get. This is a very handy skill in science classes because of the enormous amount of content there is to study! But remember, the science student only deals in the realm of rationality, experimentation, logic, etc (the philosophy of science is their guiding book). Slow learners in science classes get left behind.

The English student does pretty much exactly the same thing lol, to everyone's surprise. They have to understand concepts, themes, find evidence, carry them out to their logical conclusions, etc. But they don't exactly have one single guiding principle (no such thing as the philosophy of English- they deal with everything). These make you think for yourself- at least as an undergrad. Here the "slow learner" succeeds, "fast learners" often jump to conclusions without fully thinking them through and weighing them against all other possible philosophies.

The thing is, what science students label as the slow learner is actually how humanities students define the fast learner. If that makes sense. Not saying if you're bad at science, you'll be good in the humanities subjects...but fast/slow learning all relative
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[jenuwin]

I love learning, but I don't retain information.

I think slow learners can get by college. I'm curious as to how people with TERRIBLE grammar get through college though.

[logan]

Yes, well at the end of the day colleges are out for money like any other business. Their primary method is to push college students through their school to earn tuition as quickly as possible. Good examples of this are the increased "accelerated" degree programs over the last 20-years and 18-hour semesters advertised to younger and less experienced college students.

As a long-term college student working towards multiple degrees I feel fortunate to have found a great balance between my college schedule and the rest of my life. Taking two to three courses per semester has given me the most--allowing time for my job, an outside hobby, my exercise, family & friends, and receiving the most from each course I take. The most important thing: is to find a pace that is most comfortable for you. Best of luck : )

[Equinox]

Colleges these days are run as a business. They persuade you that you require 4 years to learn everything you need, and that an undergrad degree is absolutely essential. Then they throw a lot of (school-sponsored) distractions at you to keep you interested. It's a pretty messed up system. This is not to say that I don't consider a college education valuable, but higher education isn't designed to help people learn their subjects, it's meant to be an experience that people can enjoy. Which is, to me, the absolute worst way to approach it. I finished with a BA in English in 3 years instead of 4+, and what I learned in school is very useful now that I'm studying law. But a lot of people go to college "just because" and don't know what they want to do with their lives, much less what degree they want. Slow learners are almost encouraged to apply to college because they'll generate revenue via tuition even if they really shouldn't waste their time there. And worst of all, the system coddles them so that a lot of them graduate when they shouldn't.

I know that sounded like a rant, and it was, but I think the college system is to blame rather than the slow learners themselves.

---------- Post added 02-01-2012 at 08:42 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by logan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Their primary method is to push college students through their school to earn tuition as quickly as possible.

I personally disagree. A lot of colleges today want to persuade people to stay in school LONGER than they need to, so they keep paying tuition after their normal 4 years are up. They do this by requiring a lot of courses that really shouldn't be necessary--why do you need "gen ed" classes when college should be about preparing you for the working world? Sure, it'll make you a "well-rounded person," but being well-rounded won't help you when an employer wants someone with a specialization in a relatively narrow topic or field. They should do what the Europeans do and make high school the place to learn all the gen ed stuff so that in college you can focus on what you want to major in.

And let's not even get started on the non-academic stuff they throw at you. Studying abroad, getting involved in meaningless organizations, emphasizing sports over academics...they want you to stay longer. When I was working with the administration to see if I could get out in under 4 years, they made every effort to persuade me to stay. I wouldn't be deterred though. If I had taken another year, I would have just loaded up on "fun" but useless classes, and I wouldn't have really learned anything that would help me in law school. I had done everything I needed to do, and college was just the next step in my academic career, so I left when I had fulfilled the curriculum's requirements.

I think that colleges should be reformed so that people have a good idea of what they want to major in BEFORE they go, and will be less likely to switch halfway through. College should be a meaningful experience that prepares you for "the real world" and doesn't give you an easy out. Granted, since I was an English major I rarely had homework other than 3-4 major papers per class per semester and had a ton of free time (which really helped me as a person), but I actually cared about what I was doing and wasn't just there for a diploma.