The overlying assumption in this sort of topic, which is something familiar to me over long standing, is that somehow the material needs to be adapted to the students, so their intelligence types and learning styles are maximized. Of course, in a lot of cases, this is exactly what should happen. Not in all, however. It seems to me incredible that someone who is not verbal/linguistic could be successful in the practice of law, since that is the core of the profession. Which in turn means that trying to 'juice' law studies up by appealing to other intellectual styles is a gin, snare, and delusion. I think IT is another one of those fields in which success will only be granted to the verbal/linguistic group; and the same argument could be made _mutatis mutandis_ about the suitability of intellectual bents to other fields of application, with their consequent teaching and learning styles. Jacques Barzun, in _The House of Intellect_, had a lot to say about this which is worth hoisting inboard. Yet one of the wonderful things about generalizations is the degree to which they are not true. One of the definitions of genius is 'looking at the same thing everyone else looks at, and seeing what nobody else sees'. I think there are good examples [a recent presentation on the use of musical cues to help demonstrate trends in big data analysis comes to mind] when the application of an 'incommensurate' intellectual style to a specific are of knowledge can yield spectacular results simply because 'nobody thought of it that way before'. Amongst other things, this has a lot of application in scientific data visualization.