clauses in between here? These both are two very different means of learning. You can not compare them on one premise.

Why do we think about a regular graduate as higher than the one who has learnt by working on his own? Why? That is the lack of perception I am talking about. And that is the cost of experience which nobody seems to be

There are people who believe that experience can be sold. There are people who believe that experience can be taught. There are people who believe that experience and knowledge are the same things and can be given to anybody as a gift. There are people who run full-fledged institutions for such a cause. We call those institutions as colleges, and more specifically, degree or diploma mills.

These are the people who think that the kind of social service they are doing is done by everybody. They believe that everybody is like them. They believe that everybody who runs an institution like them will be doing the same kind of social service they are doing. Man is also social, right? They are part of society - so social service to them is self service.

So they teach from their own experience in classrooms, hoping that the students would gain from it. I know not how that will happen - they plan to make it happen through note-making and rote. And then award a degree by testing how well you crammed from others' experience. That is called qualification and your ‘ability' and ‘intelligence'.

There is a serious case of perception here. People who graduate this way are considered better in contrast to those who learn from experience the hard way by actually interacting with the events. Why is this so? Why do you bring superiority and inferiority clauses in between here? These both are two very different means of learning. You can not compare them on one premise.

Why do we think about a regular graduate as higher than the one who has learnt by working on his own? Why? That is the lack of perception I am talking about. And that is the cost of experience which nobody seems to be

, and more specifically, degree or diploma mills.

These are the people who think that the kind of social service they are doing is done by everybody. They believe that everybody is like them. They believe that everybody who runs an institution like them will be doing the same kind of social service they are doing. Man is also social, right? They are part of society - so social service to them is self service.

So they teach from their own experience in classrooms, hoping that the students would gain from it. I know not how that will happen - they plan to make it happen through note-making and rote. And then award a degree by testing how well you crammed from others' experience. That is called qualification and your ‘ability' and ‘intelligence'.

There is a serious case of perception here. People who graduate this way are considered better in contrast to those who learn from experience the hard way by actually interacting with the events. Why is this so? Why do you bring superiority and inferiority clauses in between here? These both are two very different means of learning. You can not compare them on one premise.

Why do we think about a regular graduate as higher than the one who has learnt by working on his own? Why? That is the lack of perception I am talking about. And that is the cost of experience which nobody seems to be

ight? They are part of society - so social service to them is self service.

So they teach from their own experience in classrooms, hoping that the students would gain from it. I know not how that will happen - they plan to make it happen through note-making and rote. And then award a degree by testing how well you crammed from others' experience. That is called qualification and your ‘ability' and ‘intelligence'.

There is a serious case of perception here. People who graduate this way are considered better in contrast to those who learn from experience the hard way by actually interacting with the events. Why is this so? Why do you bring superiority and inferiority clauses in between here? These both are two very different means of learning. You can not compare them on one premise.

Why do we think about a regular graduate as higher than the one who has learnt by working on his own? Why? That is the lack of perception I am talking about. And that is the cost of experience which nobody seems to be

experience. That is called qualification and your ‘ability' and ‘intelligence'.

There is a serious case of perception here. People who graduate this way are considered better in contrast to those who learn from experience the hard way by actually interacting with the events. Why is this so? Why do you bring superiority and inferiority clauses in between here? These both are two very different means of learning. You can not compare them on one premise.

Why do we think about a regular graduate as higher than the one who has learnt by working on his own? Why? That is the lack of perception I am talking about. And that is the cost of experience which nobody seems to be

clauses in between here? These both are two very different means of learning. You can not compare them on one premise.

Why do we think about a regular graduate as higher than the one who has learnt by working on his own? Why? That is the lack of perception I am talking about. And that is the cost of experience which nobody seems to be aware of.