I find grades are only a cursory indicator of intellectual worth. For sure, those who achieved A's are definitely hard-workers and have most probably looked int

I find grades are only a cursory indicator of intellectual worth. For sure, those who achieved A's are definitely hard-workers and have most probably looked into certain subjects at more depth and breadth (which they'll hopefully remember lest the whole educational experience seems totally worthless to me). I achieved A's in university. But then I know a guy who did poorly in comparison. Whereas I found what the markers expected of me he found what he wanted to know and explored what he wanted to explore, often deviating with standard practice to the detriment of his grades. Although we are both as competent as each other his university edification seemed far more personally worthwhile; I learnt for the markers and industry he learnt to increase his understanding and capability in areas sometimes not formally rewarded (with marks). I'm sure you can do both: accept the curriculum and learn it for your own benefit. I'm sure this is more or less everyone's ideal. But it seems a lot of people loose focus on their personal edification and concentrate on pleasing their markers. For an example, I'm sure there are courses on XML. You could spend your time becoming adroit in your Schema definition et al or you could spend your time pondering about the general subject in more depth and even rejecting the conventional wisdom. I'd argue the latter course of action is quite valid; but you won't get any marks for it.