I’m of the opinion that books and real experiences are absolutely different sources of knowledge. Sometimes, it’s difficult enough to tell which of those sources more important because experience is often supplemented by books.

In books we can find the overall review of a subject you like in more or less serialized form with full explanations of all questions. In some ways, books are the assemblies of experiences of lots of people over the ages in constricted structure. Obtaining such quantity of information via personal experience is impossible because it would take lots of time.

On the other hand, personal experience gives us certain skills. Without those skills, all knowledge we get from books might be useless. The best example I can tell is learning a foreign language. You might be able to remember lots of foreign words or to know by heart all grammar rules and exceptions, but without the appliance of all that knowledge in real life: writing, listening, speaking, it’s hardly possible to obtain proper language. Also, certain skills are important for applying to a job. The employer, first of all, will appreciate the work skills and then a grade or diploma.

From a psychological point of view, learning via personal experience is more effective than getting knowledge from books. The reading of books is considered a passive type of activity. Usually, you don’t have to use much effort for reading books. In spite of the fact that some people are able to remember a large extent of information from books, an average man is able to remember just essential information without details. When a man is getting personal experience, as a rule, he or she meets various difficulties, which make that person pay attention to details. When this occurs, the reward is solid and overall knowledge.

In summary, I must admit that reading and personal experience are important for learning. Even though neither books nor experience can replace the other in the matter of importance, I would give first place to personal experience.