It has been said, “Not everything that is learned is contained in books.” Compare and contrast knowledge gained from experience with knowledge gained from books. In you’re your opinion, which source is more important? Why? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

It is true that not every learned is contained in books, for books are only a medium aimed at transmitting knowledge gained (it is hoped) from experience. Book knowledge has often been put down as inferior to knowledge gained from experience, the “School of Hard Knocks” so to speak. But it is an unfair comparison, much like having someone choose between his right and left arm.

Let us consider the two. Book knowledge has the advantage of temporal permanence, ease of transmission, purposeful scope and depth, and availability. If your bookstore hasn’t got it, Amazon.com will. On the downside, books are boring, time-consuming, requiring of considerable reading skills, and often hampered by how ideas are imperfectly captured by words. I have yet to find a travel book as good as actually being there.

Learning through experience, on the other hand, has stark clarity, personal significance, and is often buttressed with repetitive practice. That is, of course, assuming you do not do too much harm to yourself in the process of learning. The drawback of learning through experience is it can show you how or what, but not necessarily why something happened. Such is the reason why car mechanics might be very good at fixing up your car, but it’s the school trained engineer who’ll probably end up running the car shop. The former knows how, the latter, how AND why.

Now we come to chosing, something I am reluctant to do but am required to. I choose book learning for the very qualities of a book I mentioned earlier. I know that when opportunity presents itself and I have learned my book well, I should have less trouble learning. The reverse, experience before book learning, is likier to bring me to grief.