Understanding is "facile" [superficial], but rote learning is the real way....?
Seems reversed. An explanation is she's in Electrical Engineering - my ugrad experience of EE was a emphasis on using tools (formula etc) as opposed to understanding them (that's for Science). Engineers, after all, are paid to get stuff done, not just sit there and grok it. "Fluency" with tools works well for EE.
OTOH, all discplines have "tools" - even pure maths has algebraic manipulation. If you're not fluent, it will slow you down (fortunately, you'll have years of algebraic practice from school).
OAH, most professional mathematicians don't think symbolically (a survey found, IIRC, about 70% visual, 25% kinesthetic, 5% linguistic) - notation not so much a tool of thought as a serial representation (serialization/data format), for recording/communicating. So practice in thinking is what's helpful.
I think fluency with "standard" modes of thought is a double-edged sword. Yes, you become expert with those tools, fast and able. But that very expertise biases your perception and reasoning in terms of them. Thus, it's hard for you to see another way; you'll tend to build on top of them instead. Fortunately, since our tools are pretty good, this approach works well. It's just that you're less likely to see fundamentally new approaches (though to be fair, that's pretty damn unlikely anyway).
Seems reversed. An explanation is she's in Electrical Engineering - my ugrad experience of EE was a emphasis on using tools (formula etc) as opposed to understanding them (that's for Science). Engineers, after all, are paid to get stuff done, not just sit there and grok it. "Fluency" with tools works well for EE.
OTOH, all discplines have "tools" - even pure maths has algebraic manipulation. If you're not fluent, it will slow you down (fortunately, you'll have years of algebraic practice from school).
OAH, most professional mathematicians don't think symbolically (a survey found, IIRC, about 70% visual, 25% kinesthetic, 5% linguistic) - notation not so much a tool of thought as a serial representation (serialization/data format), for recording/communicating. So practice in thinking is what's helpful.
I think fluency with "standard" modes of thought is a double-edged sword. Yes, you become expert with those tools, fast and able. But that very expertise biases your perception and reasoning in terms of them. Thus, it's hard for you to see another way; you'll tend to build on top of them instead. Fortunately, since our tools are pretty good, this approach works well. It's just that you're less likely to see fundamentally new approaches (though to be fair, that's pretty damn unlikely anyway).