If you consider how knowledge decays, your strategy makes more sense. You get to something like Pareto proficiency in a subject and can then ‘reactivate’ that knowledge more easily in the future, should it be required.
You are also of course aware of that knowledge in the first place, which may be even more important. In the timeless Rumsfeldian: you have pushed back a bit at the unknown unknowns.
The alternative path of deeply learning something you may never apply (e.g. what happens to many PhDs) seems inherently less desirable, in my opinion.
You are also of course aware of that knowledge in the first place, which may be even more important. In the timeless Rumsfeldian: you have pushed back a bit at the unknown unknowns.
The alternative path of deeply learning something you may never apply (e.g. what happens to many PhDs) seems inherently less desirable, in my opinion.