Of course the counter-argument to this is that it can teach students more real-world methodology - ie don't re-invent the wheel - instead try to find alternativ

Of course the counter-argument to this is that it can teach students more real-world methodology - ie don't re-invent the wheel - instead try to find alternative sources where the same problem has already been solved. I n practice (my experience) it tends to be a lot more common and is practiced widely, resulting in students that "know" the answers but can't apply the theory to new problems - having never learned how to discover the wheel. Which tends to emphasise the devaluing of a university education even more. I believe the exams / term papers where the lecturer came up with a new set of problems were more successful in weeding out the "learn by memorizing" over the "learn by understanding", but that is just anecdotal experience. Anyone got any hard data to back this up???