So if you wanted to practice law you'd go to law school and learn a million different case studies and precedents and legal codes and you'd debate and you'd write briefs and it'd take you three years after you got your bachelor's. But if you wanted to learn how to dig a hole, you'd buy a shovel. I'm not saying mixing is as simple as digging a hole. But I am saying it's not as hard as practicing law. It's not about difficulty or ease - I mean, I'd much rather practice law than dig holes. It takes a lot more knowledge and expertise. But there's an art to digging holes that you won't learn by sitting in a classroom learning about shovels. Here's a great set of tools for working on medium to heavy engines and equipment. Here's a great set of tools for working on bicycles. Places like Berklee try real hard to convince you that if you have the former, you'll be good at fixing bicycles... when in fact you need the latter but you need to know how to use them. And the only way to know what you're doing is to fix bicycles. Berklee will not give you hands-on experience fixing bicycles - they'll charge you a shit ton to work on like three bicycles in the most overstuffed bike shop on the planet and then you'll venture forth and discover that the guys who are actually making money at this can fix the shit out of a bicycle with a Leatherman and a ball peen hammer while there you are, with your 800lbs of Snap-Ons, unsure of what to do with a leaky inner tube. That was a really tortured analogy. I'm rambling and hungry. But the bottom line is there are avocations heavy on theory and there are avocations heavy on practice and mixing sound is a practice-heavy avocation. Does that make sense?
Similiar sounding to when I studied Architectural Technician in college instead of Architecture at University. Many graduates of the University program ended up coming to my program after realizing they spent years not sleeping so they could draw pretty pictures but never used AutoCAD. My profs threw so much shade at University grads, one even described us as future dream ruiners for architects who didn't understand physics or the building code.
I went to a school with a really well-regarded architecture program. I was friends with more of a few architecture students, since they were the only other people using the SGI boxes late at night. Absolutely none of them are working as architects now, and not for lack of trying. I'm left with the impression that it's a really brutal degree for how hard it is to actually work as an architect.
The University in my city also has a highly regarded program but they don't teach the students enough to be respected by others in the field. Which sucks because they do spend years missing out on sleep more than most degrees. In college we learnt everything, we spent a week just learning about wood. If something is in or around a house we were taught about it which makes it much easier to communicate with tradespeople and contractors. We were taught multiple different softwares as well and we went over the entire building code. That thing comes in a box and you have to assemble it yourself. I remember when I went in to buy it there was a big note on the side of every box saying the entire box was in fact one unit. The thing is as well if you spend an extra year in college you can become an Architectural Technologist who can design stuff, so why should somebody hire an architect ? I steer anybody who asks me towards college for most things but especially this.