Agree. One major difference is between: 1. Technical TRAINING to do job X (rote-style) 2. Conceptual LEARNING to think creatively about solving problems and a

Agree. One major difference is between: 1. Technical TRAINING to do job X (rote-style) 2. Conceptual LEARNING to think creatively about solving problems and asking and answering novel questions—big or small. Many of us on Hacker News understands the huge difference between this teo modes that has been so elegantly captured in Richard W Hammings “The Art of Doing Science and Engineering: Learning to Learn”. If you want to be TRAINED then sure, go to an institution that does no research. If you want to LEARN then go to an institution that does some research, better yet, a great deal of research. I was an undegrad at UCSC in the 1970s—-no grades and great faculty who loved both teaching and research. I learned to learn and I still live to learn. Now I am expected to TRAIN first year med students human genetics that will allow them to pass their boards. The boards demand insufferably ancient genetics—a cut-off date of 2001 would be fine-wonderful. But there has been a bit of progress in genetics in the last two decades. I tried to teach them a hybrid of the “classics” but with 50% of time devoted to cutting-edge modern genetics. I hate TRAINING to the test. You can imagine my reviews as a professor. Who is at fault?