Silvaire wrote:
He drove a Lotus Elan to work, and I think I got him by knowing with precise hands-on and theoretical detail what that was, and why
He’d have needed someone who did!
LOTUS = Lots of Trouble, Usually Serious
You know, when the apocalypse comes, we’ll need welders, plumbers, carpenters and builders, not anthropologists and lawyers.
From what I see now – if you’re an A&P or a welder, or have some sort of skill, you’ll make more money than any academic (these days).
My parents wanted me to get a classic academic education and safe job. I’m so glad I never did that. I’d be miserable. And much less well off.
I remember at the first day in university, the head had his token welcome speech. He wanted to emphasize the importance of socializing and getting involved with sports, acting, music etc. He said that we could get through university just focusing on the curriculum. But if we did, then we could at best become professors 
I think at the university as any other place, it becomes what you make it to be. You can whine about all the silly “politics” and stupid people there (and with good reason), or you can take a more relaxed stand and focus on having a great time with fellow students (both on and off campus). That old head of the university was a vise man.
LeSving wrote:
you can take a more relaxed stand and focus on having a great time with fellow students (both on and off campus)
Time waits for no man, learning is not a university licensed activity, and wasting time is not a good idea… especially when you’re young. Unfortunately most people don’t figure that out until its too late and they’re e.g. faced with a bleak underfunded scenario that constrains them to spending their retirement years in a rocking chair, or alternately they never try to achieve much of value no matter how much time they have.
I had a great off campus life while at university, mainly with people who had nothing to do with the university. Among other things, a pretty nice aircraft got built and flown That was a lot more interesting to me than hanging around with school kids.
Silvaire wrote:
I basically hated the university environment, and my purpose there was to get what I needed (in which I was successful) and leave Within a couple of years I was working in a company where the average degree level is very high, and in due course I ended up managing the technical efforts of a number of those people in R&D. There was a reason that happened.
What was that reason?
Because I can do it… 
(including technical management and decision making that involves no more ‘analysis paralysis’ than necessary, doesn’t annoy associated smart people too much and minimizes development iterations to an acceptable degree though understanding the trade-offs between various competing priorities and thereby selecting appropriate design choices early, with a clear end goal in mind)
Silvaire aside Back to the original topic.
So few people understand engineering (mechanical and electronic) and physics at a “real” level nowadays.
I don’t think this is a correct observation when thinking about it. I think what has happened is that there is a shift for what subjects people have a “real” understanding about. For cars this has diminished obviously. There is not much an average person can do except changing tires and washing the car. Not on new cars. Old cars is another matter all together. With airplanes, the opposite has happened due to experimentals and ULs. For boats it has always been the case that “real” knowledge is required, and the same goes for most hobbies and sports also. Then we have PCs where kids, hunting for optimal gaming performance, do all kinds of weird things (dismantling, building, changing). This is something that never existed before.
I think what has happened is that an average person living an average life (whatever that is, going to work, eating, social media on a phone ??) has little need for “real” physics knowledge. But, once you go outside this definition of average life/person, the understanding is as large as ever.
What is an “average person” in the first place? It reminds me of the last election less than a year ago. The labor party had this campaign that they were the party for the common/average person. “Now it’s time for the common/average person to be in the center” and similar slogans. Sounded great I guess? But then some started asking questions about what exactly defines a common/average person? What IS a common/average person? Some criteria floated around, rather broad ones, but don’t remember exactly, and the National Bureau of Statistics investigated this (mostly for fun I guess). Using proper statistical analysis they found that less than 4% of the Norwegian population would fit into the definition of what the labor party had for a “common/average” person Rather funny the whole thing. They won by the way, but the polls today are lower than ever in history, soon even approaching that 4%
