There are two kinds of learning. In other words, learning this thing has two meanings. The first meaning refers to learning in a broad sense, that is, the accumulation of knowledge covering all aspects of life is difficult to quantify. The second kind refers to school learning in a narrow sense, that is, quantitative knowledge accumulation calculated by grades and exams. The great goal of modern pedagogy is to integrate these two kinds of learning through some scientific teaching arrangement. Of course, under today's circumstances, this road is still far from Xiu Yuan.
Personally, I think that learning attitude is easy to deviate, especially in such an exam-centered environment. Some students I personally know are indifferent to all kinds of knowledge after class. At first, I may be afraid of wasting time, just forcing my interest to stay focused. Later, some people developed into a very vicious mentality: they completely lost interest in extracurricular knowledge and even didn't want to read it. Thinking of the fragility and hypocrisy of "after class" and "in class", I can't help worrying about these students. If the concept of class disappears, will there be nothing in life? Of course not. Not at all. Absolutely not. I think that many college students live an empty life and there is no news about the direction of life. Although it has not been investigated, I still can't help but think that narrow learning is the result of broad learning.
At the same time, some students are "broken cans and broken falls". If you don't go to school well in class, you lose interest and confidence in all the knowledge after class and can't find the direction. Either it is a cynicism about "compulsory education", or it is a criticism of the current education mode by "crossing the world of mortals". I don't think these practices are correct learning attitudes. First of all, life is about struggle. If you don't have the courage to face these things in your studies or in the first 20 years of your life, what will be the bigger challenge in the future? Being criticized and laughed at is imposed by others, and giving up is for yourself. Never giving up is true courage. Of course, this does not mean that regardless of the consequences, everything will win. You should fight for what you really like. If you say that you are really not interested in things that run counter to your dreams, do as little as possible and do the best. But life is often imperfect, and people always have to do something they don't want to do. People with eyes can see clearly the defects of compulsory education, but sarcasm can't change what makes you sick. In fact, it is better to spend time on irony than to put it into action. There are always people who say that compulsory education is poor, which makes people learn without purpose. My answer is, why don't you take reform education as your motivation? Isn't this a good goal? Since we are in this game, why not play by its rules first? If you have the ability, you can still play hard and make it a footnote of your ability. Unless, of course, you firmly believe that playing with it is a waste of time.
Generally speaking, my attitude towards learning is simple: life is learning. How big and complicated life is! The same is true of study. You can learn so much from one thing, in all aspects, in all senses and at all levels, depending on your thinking ability. I have never recognized my primary school education, but at the same time, I will never say that I wasted six years, because I did learn something, all kinds of things. At least, I often mutter to myself, "I am a good student, I am a good student …". Having said that, I really believe in myself. I dare not pretend that my learning attitude must be superior, but it may also have certain reference value.