it is firstly the school system, secondly the student. mass education was brought in to produce workers for the industrial revolution factories, where they could understand written instructions for the assembly line. Before the industrial revolution, most people were illiterate. And the people who got educated did it as a hobby, eg with mathematics. In fact many famous scientists hadnt gone to uni, eg Priestley who discovered oxygen, and Michael Faraday, neither had gone to uni. In Britain in 1939 they were debating whether science should be done at unis!
the modern education system of universities in fact is from islam from Spain, where the muslims created unis around their religion. Spain was islamic for a long era, the spanish moors.
A british spy enrolled pretending to be a muslim, and he brought the ideas back to create Oxford uni. The use of quads at Oxford, where the buildings surround a lawn is from the moorish universities in Spain. Oxford and then Cambridge were based around anglican christianity, where they adapted the islamic idea to christianity. Cambridge uni was formed by scholars fleeing religious persecution at Oxford uni, hence it is very similar structure to Oxford uni. In fact in 1900, you couldnt get a uni degree in England unless you were male anglican. If you werent, then you could get special dispensation to attend, but no qualification at the end. women didnt even have the vote in 1900.
And mass education will always be problematic, because each person is different, and needs an arrangement good for them. you cannot just force everyone into the same box of say 13 to 16 year old: the first certificate, 16 to 18: the second certificate, uni course 3 years, then masters 1 year, then phd 3 years. it doesnt work like that. Its like Solomon Grundy, born on Monday, christened on Tuesday, married on Wednesday, took ill on Thursday, worse on Friday, died on Saturday, buried on Sunday, and that was the end of Solomon Grundy.
someone noticed that a lot of successful people were born in January, and they researched it. where successful people are generally born in the early months of the year. They found it is because your school year is decided entirely by your age. so someone born on 1st Jan 2010 and someone born on 31st Dec 2010 will be in the same year at school. but when you are say 5 or 6, a year is a long time in development, so the people born on 1st Jan are 1 year more developed psychologically than those born on 31st Dec, and thus those born in the early months outdo those born later, at least statistically. A specific person could mitigate this by their own efforts and enthusiasm.
the earlier reasons are why driving lessons are generally good, as you get individual tuition. Quality education is always individual, and each person follows their interests, and takes their own time. Driving lessons are good because they want people driving cars as it is big money for the manufacturers. In fact in the UK before WW2, there was the eugenics movement, where the aristocrats opposed free education for the working classes! after WW2 that movement vanished.
with mass education they actually deliberately made it into an unpleasant experience, with punishments, uninteresting facts, learning by rote, exams, etc, because they just wanted people to learn enough to work in a factory, and they didnt want them getting interested in learning, as they would become a threat to the people at the top. The system is actually designed to fail people, they want most people to fail. Hence at each stage of education, there is a big drop in number of available places. I did pure maths at uni, and there were about 228 of us doing maths, but there were only 8 places for pure maths phds, where I was lucky enough to be one of the 8. And 8 for applied maths, so even if all 228 did brilliantly, 212 could not do a phd. The system at each stage presented the next stage as the big reward if you do well, but not the phd. the phd is where the road ends. with the phd they dont want you to do this, and the plan has succeeded with most people failed!
In similar sense; because you struggle with ATX power connectors, are the connectors themselves bad? Or is it because you can't figure it out?
its the design of the connectors, good design is idiot proof where you dont have to figure it out!
its just inefficient if everyone has to figure everything out from scratch, that energy is better spent on the things which havent been figured out by anyone.
classic example of terrible design is the jumpers on the IDE drives, thankfully today you just plug and go with drives!
When 90% of people succeed in something (school, unplugging ATX power connections without much issue), but the remaining 10% fail or struggle (failing school/exam, struggle with power connectors), then it isn't the system's fault, but instead those few who can't figure it out.
the thing is a large percentage fail at education at each stage, or at least dont get top grades.
eg with our maths degree, some 228 students, 72 got 1st classes, so that is less than 1 in 3. of those 72 only 16 can get to a phd place, ie more than 90% will not be allowed to do a phd no matter how good they are. Now they dont tell the students that, you find that out when you apply for a phd place!
at school its like that with A, B, C, etc grades, to get to uni in the UK you need straight As, and most people dont get any As!
Now I did get through at each stage, but only just to get a phd place, when the one lecturer agreed to supervise me, I had to go to this other lecturer for the funding of the phd, which was from Nato, and he refused to give it to me. He said "there isnt much money to go around", so I said: but the other lecturer agreed to supervise me, and I was top in his course. He then reluctantly gave me the form for the funding. He could only give out those forms to 8 students.
Surely you've failed test/exam in your life. Was that test/exam bad, whereby it needs to be made easier? Or was your knowledge lacking?
with uni, the problem wasnt the test, but was the teaching, as they gave us way too many courses, with way too much info per course, where the only way to succeed was to learn superficially, which is what I did and got a first class. but for the phd, you need to properly understand things, and net effect is people get stuck with the few courses they did learn properly. I promise you that all our lecturers would fail the graduation exams!
in our 3rd year we had to learn at least 6 courses to get a first class. Now in recent years I decided to revisit my favourite course to learn it properly, and it took something like 6 months! it was about 110 pages of lecture notes, and with topic after topic after topic, going on forever. It was basically designed to fail people, as you just dont have the time to learn 6 such courses in a year. The fact I was one of 8 who got through, means it isnt that I am stupid, as I am one who got through it. And also I was top in the uni in the course by my supervisor, but even that I only learnt superficially! yet was top. I think that is a moment of truth!
with the other phd students and the staff also, all only know a few courses properly. Realistically you could learn 2 really well in the final year, which is where specialisation begins, but you'd fail the exam! I read biographical things written by different lecturers, and all are stuck with what they got into as undergrads, where with some that is maybe 60 years ago!
About EV;
It is feasible to build 3rd rail or overhanging power lines for trains, since trains are running on rails and are cut off from the rest of the infrastructure. Also, trains travel between loading stations.
But for cars, that travel all over the place, not just from specific point A to specific point B, it isn't feasible to build in-road electricity rail or overhanging power lines, for cars to take electricity directly from mains and operate as electrical trains do.
Just think a bit. From your driveway to local store. How would you use an electric car without internal battery? There would then need to be either electrical rail in the ground, where you drive along it. Or overhead power lines, from where to take the electricity. Is it even possible to build either of the two at your driveway (which would extend into your garage, if you have a garage)? And when there is in-ground power rail, how people would cross the street? Step on it and you'll get zapped to high heaven.
you could use a flywheel for transitions, where you dont need the electricity continually, but where it speeds up a flywheel, and you tap the flywheel for energy. on a road lane, you can have a central line which the car aligns with to get power contact. eg with the wireless chargers they have a magnet to get proper alignment.
maybe they can use induced electricity, like with the wireless chargers?
or capture the electricity with superconductivity. Musk will arrange lasers on the moon, which will track your car supplying it with laser energy.
the problem with that german road, is lorries are more complicated, it might be more feasible to arrange a road just for cars. with automated car washes, these wont handle very large vehicles, just normal cars.
you could have a rail on the left of the car for say the UK, where if you overtake, you lose contact with that, but you rely on momentum, with shielding to prevent people directly contacting the rail.
for overhead supply you need to standardise the geometry of the cars, eg have 1 lane for cars conforming to the new standard.