The current learning model in place across the world is flawed for several reasons. Primarily, it does not recognize the individual needs of each person, but instead attempts to fit every person into the same flawed 'learning model' in order to feed them all kinds of subject matter in the same set of flawed formats.

To elaborate: the learning model in place in the majority of situations is as follows: An expert presents a set of information to a group of people. The most common formats in place are (1) expert lecturing to students, (2) expert writing a document for students to read, (3) expert offers a series of sample exercises for the student to perform. Any or all of these formats can be used in conjunction with one another.

This learning model is found almost exclusively in the education system, replacing every other system out there. The reason this model was chosen over others is that it is the one capable of maximizing the number of students for every expert, meaning that fewer experts are needed to teach a larger number of students. This ability was valued highly in the industrial era where standardization, specialization, synchronization, concentration, maximization and centralization were the core values held.

Now that we have firmly moved into the post-industrial and post-modern era, new values are emerging, including personalization, generalization, individualization, minimization and decentralization. In short, we are breaking out of the 'mold mentality' and once more becoming individuals.

Before the industrial era there were plenty of different learning processes, most taking place on smaller scales. The three models I will present here are the following: The apprenticeship model, the guru model and the discussion model.

The apprenticeship model is regarded as the most efficient learning model from the perspective of the student. Through this model, the student learns the fastest. It consists of a single expert and a single student working side by side in close proximity. The student gets to Observe the expert at work, Listen to his instructions and Perform the necessary tasks with expert guidance. Having only one student allows the expert to adjust the rate at which he teaches to best suit the student, emphasize areas of weakness and gloss over areas of strength. Specific problems can be addressed immediately before bad habits have a chance to form and practical, relevant guidance is given at all times. The biggest drawback with this method is that it limits the expert to a single student at a time, or at the most 2-4.

The second learning method is the guru model. This model continues with the same expert to student flow of information but involves limited interaction between the expert and the students. In this model, the student has a brief, personal interaction with an expert, either once in a lifetime or once in a period of time. During this brief interaction specific and general issues are raised and guidance is offered according to the student's level of understanding and current needs. The guru model is rarely used in isolation but is usually used as a supplement for other methods, the most common one being Independent Learning. Going to a guru can be viewed as a 'tune up' and is usually preceded by the student preparing a list of questions/issues that he feels need to be addressed and is succeeded by the student attempting to integrate the guru's teachings into his own thought process and practices. This model is still more individualized than the Lecturer model, but takes up far less of the expert's time and resources. It also forces the student to do a lot more work in the form of preparations and integrations.

The final learning method I wish to present is the 'discussion model'. In this model there is no expert and there is no student; it exists between two or more people of similar levels of expertise (or perhaps an expert pretending to have less expertise). This model consists of all parties involved discussing, arguing or collaborating in order to develop new ideas, or to achieve old ideas independently. On the surface this seems to be a highly inefficient model, since there is no expert guidance as with most other models, but in effect it has its benefits as well. Because this model involves a great deal more effort and concentration on the part of all parties involved, and because it engages more faculties of the mind in the process, all information learned/invented in a discussion model is known more thoroughly by each party involved. This is also a necessary model to be used in areas where no expert can be found or exists, as in new fields of knowledge.

Now that we have moved into an age which places less and less emphasis on uniformity and more and more emphasis on individuality, every aspect of society must adapt to this shift in paradigm, especially such a fundamental aspect of society as 'mode of learning'. We can see more and more children being frustrated with 'traditional' (industrial era) learning methods. Attention spans are dwindling as desires for personal expression are increasing. Parents who are most aware of this paradigm shift are looking for more era-appropriate environments for their children, such as private schools which offer more personal attention, home schooling or even simply supplementing the education of their children with personal tutors.

With such a massive shift in paradigm occuring as we speak it is a wonder that people are adapting so slowly. Yes, individualized learning programs are becoming available, including plenty of internet resources such as topical forums, wikis, chatrooms or rent-an-expert sites. University professors are getting more and more demand from students for longer 'office hours' where they can sit with their professors one-on-one, so much so that Teaching Assistants are also required to aid with this aspect of the university experience.

In conclusion, the outdated system of running every person through the same set of instructions and the same pace of learning should be relegated to the past, and only hung onto sparingly. Every student should be looked at individually, whose progress and needs should be measured independently of others. Should the time not be available to investigate the needs and means of an individual, then deference to the individual's ideas of what is necessary should be the first instinct, not deference to the 'standard learning model'.