I'm exaggerating a bit but mostly because my experience is that the kinds of questions that are asked on tests a lower levels of science education are things th

I'm exaggerating a bit but mostly because my experience is that the kinds of questions that are asked on tests a lower levels of science education are things that you simply know at higher levels and not because you were tested on them but because you have to use them and apply them every day. Better to have courses that expect you to have read all of Molecular Biology of the Cell in advance and present material with that expectation. That way students can see the real applications of the knowledge that we build on and not just see it as some stupid thing to be memorized for the next certificate. I get no prize for knowing IUPAC nomenclature, but I couldn't even start to do my work without it. The expectation should be as such, you get a prize for thinking creatively about how one could answer questions or for coming up with answerable questions that haven't been asked before. I actually think that formal courses are an excellent way to learn 'textbook' material, but they are far more useful when you know you are going to use that knowledge in the future. The question for me is whether, at the highest levels, we should be focusing our courses, and rewarding people for the equivalent of learning how to walk when we need them to fly.