I'm not sure if I understand. Are you asking why complex jobs require more complex education?

Being smart doesn't necessarily mean it will take less time to program the human brain, I think the way most people would define intelligence is by how much information that brain can retain, not process. Personally I don't feel that people in those good jobs are necessarily smart, you can buy your way into those or get connections to hook you up. I'd go as far as to say a lot of higher education people I've met who prided themselves on their intelligence, seemed like idiots. They're good at one thing and one thing only. College used to be where the intelligent went to better themselves, now a standard that your average kid goes to for sex and drugs.

> how come people who fix cars for a living requires
There's a bit of a false dichotomy here. When you say "fix" are you referring to an entry level mechanic like you'd find at jiffylube or a skilled technician that does private servicing for high-end vehicles? There's a world of difference between the two: the former is basically "routine" maintenance where you follow a checklist. The latter might require a higher skill level that comes from years of experience in the field, being able to intuitively debug the root cause of issues (but I'm not a mechanic and I hear that modern cars are basically digital black-boxes anyway so this comparison might not be very good). Nonetheless the point stands: you're comparing two different things – I suspect if you look at the high-end of trades jobs you'll see that even though they might not necessarily receive formal education they still do an equivalent amount of time learning and training. That is, a master crafstman is in a completely different league than someone who just took woodworking in highschool.

Now going to your particular examples
> receive instruction until they're over 30 years old
>so much less instruction than scientists and doctors do before they're done being schoolchildren
Until "over 30 years old" is exaggerating quite a bit. I don't know anyone who actively receives post-college education for over 10 years after they graduate (assuming they graduate at ~20). Usually the "scientists" in question will switch from receiving instruction to doing research, and the PhD programs (which might indeed end up taking about 8 years or so) are mostly focused on this research rather than receiving education. Still, the reason why large amount of undergraduate and graduate coursework is needed is because it takes a large time to get up to speed on the breadth and depth of background knowledge needed for these fields. You aren't going to be able to research in Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory without having a solid footing in number theory, which can take several years to master. But this is research-focused stuff. Most people doing practical things in $BIG_CO will not need anywhere near as much education, which is why most people can get a job in STEM simply after a bachelor's degree.


Also as a last thing, you're conflating smartness with being exposed to the background knowledge. Yes the smarter people will be able to grok information faster, but they've still got to be exposed to it in a systematic manner which takes time. And usually these smarter people will be the kind of people who get bored with easy stuff and so gravitate to the more challenging and dense subjects which will inherently take longer to master, so it balances out.

Post edited on 1st Jan 2021, 6:47pm

>>37243
Most of college is figuring stuff out on your own. The classes are just for credit so you can get a degree from a place with a solid reputation. If you're lucky, the professor or TAs are good for answering questions, but that's certainly not a guarantee. If you think it's easy, try self-studying 4+ difficult subjects at the same time and getting to a semi-proficient state in all of them within three months.

In an ideal world, exams in these subjects would be publically available for people to take so they can get a free, but respected degree and the elitist middle man and textbook mill would be unnecessary.

>>37243
Dumb people are confident. Normies mistake confidence for being "right". See Dunning-Kruger effect.

>>37269
50% of people are dumb; there's a lot of dumbness in the world.