Self-directed learners study subjects that complement their current interests and obsessions. Presently I am interested in the European sovereign-debt crisis, so it is natural to go ahead and study the history of the Eurozone.

Now, taken over time, these topics will form a natural chain, networking with my present interests and previous topics of study. I might move from studying 'neoliberalism' to 'Margaret Thatcher' to 'Ronald Reagan', and onwards.

As this example suggests, autodidacts will quite naturally get stuck in topic chains, studying subjects that share a particular outlook, an outlook they take an interest in (be that outlook political, economic, or otherwise).

As such, autodidacts will inevitably study a syllabus that reflects, supports, and reinforces their current inclinations. Or, put more pointedly, there is no obvious mechanism by which self-learners will come to grapple with divergent viewpoints or challenging disciplines.

There is cause for confusion here. I am not claiming that self-directed learners will consciously choose to ignore alternative perspectives, only that this pattern naturally results from the way an autodidact studies. If I start reading the work of some libertarian political thinker, the thinker's intellectual predecessors or successors is the next obvious topic of study. The starting point lays a train-track into similar material.

(Similar anxieties have been articulated by Eli Pariser about the social Web. Pariser argues that Google's powerful filtering algorithm—informed by previous searches—skims off content that challenges a searcher's current outlook in order to return better search results, meaning that users browse the Web within an intellectual bubble.)

Additionally, I do not argue that well-organised and broad-minded autodidacts cannot escape this trap. Only that it is difficult to do so. Firstly, this pattern usually takes place without the learner's awareness, meaning they cannot take remedial steps. And, secondly, it is easy to imagine a learner ceaselessly kicking divergent perspectives into the long grass; "I'll read one more liberal thinker before I crack open Hayek".

But, importantly, universities disrupt this pattern.

Unlike critics seem to believe, universities comprise more than a succession of uniform courses on bland topics. Instead, they are the pooling point for a generation of young people from disparate backgrounds with divergent politico-cultural perspectives.

This vibrant academic social fabric provides the natural environment for informed, critical dialogue and the exchange of ideas and opinions. And, it is through such exchanges that our ideas are challenged, deconstructed, and rebuilt.

Of course, I am liable to an accusation of idealism. Firstly, for believing that university is any more than a stopgap between high school and work for young people to drink, party, and have sex. Or, for believing truly socially mixed universities exist. I do not deny that second-rate party schools exist, nor that the West is diseased with economic inequality. But, these are not essential to the university system. And, I am optimistic that our governments are taking proactive steps to rectify both problems.

Taken together, I worry that self-directed learning lends itself to an arrogant self-belief in one's opinions and a lack of regard for the complexity and nuances of politico-cultural debates, and that the platform universities provide for open interaction between peoples of different socio-economic background has been largely ignored.

(Note: from an article I wrote way back when)