What subjects are best for autodidactic study?

Post Reply New Topic

What subjects would be the best for studying independently?

My thoughts are that mostly every subject can be learned in most aspects independently. Some subjects, such as in medical science, are not ones that are suited for independent study but actually require formal education. However, such subjects as physics, chemistry, electronics, mathematics, history, dead languages, art, music, poetry, computer languages, etc do not necessarily require a formal system of instruction to learn them. What specific subjects or general categories do you think that autodidacticism would be a better mode of learning for than the formal mode?

I was on independent study most of my high school years and I have found that sciences that didn't involve math very doable on their own. Math like Physics and Calculus are best with a teacher because there are a lot of formulas and types of problems that I needed to go through with someone else, especially when they confused me

Well, even when outside of a formal system you can still ask other people for help where you don't understand, or find a better textbook, or do point researches to find answers about terminology and methods of solving problems.

I think some practical subjects, like biology, are possible to learn independently to some extent, but ultimately a biologist solves real problems in a laboratory and it takes a long time to learn laboratory skills and the thought processes involved in devising experiments to solve those problems, not to mention the huge expense of laboratory equipment.

I'm thinking cost of equipment is going to be a limiting factor for many modern subjects, including engineering, electronics, etc. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is nice, but applying it for the good of wider society is the real goal and for that you need to be a part of something bigger, like a company or other institution where collaboration can take place and equipment/facilities are available. I think the days of polymaths like Da Vinci are pretty much gone, as advancing a field requires a foundation of knowledge that today takes a great deal of time to learn and practice.

I'm not arguing for the recurrence of polymaths, however as long as everyone does only the absolute minimum and has as their goal a mere piece of paper rather than an education there can certainly not be anyone who is an expert in multiple fields. I do not see the depths of subjects today as being so much greater than in the past that a person could not become a polymath, however that is certainly the excuse of this age as to why people don't try to understand more than the minimum.

That is because you have not seen any deeper in any subject than about the level of a typical freshman course. Even in any individual field, such as mathematics, physics, or biology, there is far more than any one person could ever learn in a lifetime.

Well then, there shall always be more to study. Narrowing one's focus into myopia is still not the answer to having so much available to learn.

It is if you want to learn enough to be useful at anything. Sure, you can learn a shallow, superficial smattering of a hundred different things, or you could learn a whole lot about a more specific field and actually be able to do something in it. Jack of all trades, master of none...

Or studying on one's own a person could learn from the same textbooks as would be used throughout a 4 year course in mathematics and complete those, then those used in a 4 year course in chemistry and complete those, then move on to those used in a 4 year course in physics and complete those, etc. Additionally doing studies such would cost much less than the ~ $2,000 a class that even a cheap university would charge. Even buying all the lab equipment necessary for studying the physical sciences would cost less than so many degrees with their artificially inflated prices.

I think Computers would be a very easy subject to learn independently - I go ahead in the textbook I'm given without any instruction. It's the exact same with French, so I think people can learn other languages on their own well enough as well - so long as they can find an online audio guide. History would also be something I'd think you could learn on your own.

And that's my share.

Thanks for posting on topic. Also, ancient and medieval languages which are no longer spoken would not even require audio guides.

Ignoring the fact that you're not likely to do even that, I think you are missing just how little of the total subject anyone can understand after only an undergraduate degree. Mathematics is way too big a field to really fit a meaningful chunk of it into just four years. It's too big for anyone to realistically learn all there is to know even of one branch of mathematics over their entire lifetime. Physics would be even more unrealistic, since before attempting physics you have to learn the math. It is no longer possible for anyone to be a polymath. Human knowledge has advanced too far for that.

Good for you. Let me know when you have something useful to say.