<p>
</p>
<p>I definitely think it’s a balance act between conceptual understanding and concrete practice problems. But I’ve found that the more I read technical texts carefully, the less practice problems I need to do. I’ve done it for all my classes, including ochem, which is stereotypically a problem-set oriented class. </p>
<p>The OP sounded similar to me, so I simply offered my study strategies and told him(her?) the mistakes I’d made in the past. </p>
<p>I agree that the java library example was poor–I wasn’t encouraging anyone to memorize unhelpful information that will ultimately become obsolete.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your sure blow that whistle. Remove the exaggerated arrogance and I somewhat agree with your above post (although the absurdity is noted); thinking and memorizing are two separate skills. But conceptual understanding compensates for poor memorization skills because there’s less things you don’t understand/need to remember precisely. This is a benefit, not a drawback, even in your so called “low IQ/high GPA” majors.</p>
<p>And the idea that there’s some inverse correlation between high intelligence and GPA is idiotic. IQ is not subject to inflation–by definition. Thus, there’s way more high GPA students than intelligent people–if IQ is the measurement tool. The odds favor intelligent people so much that they would have to be specifically lazy to not get a high GPA. Very few other factors (besides medical/psychological conditions) are reasonable.</p>