4 ms·

You're implying that grades are an objective metric of value. This is often false, because the metrics for grading are oriented around what's easily testable, r

You're implying that grades are an objective metric of value. This is often false, because the metrics for grading are oriented around what's easily testable, rather than what's actually a sign of good work. Kind of like hours spent in a gym, actually.

jartelt 10y ago
No, I am just arguing that someone's grade on a test is directly linked to how well they do on the test and not necessarily on how much studying they did. If you don't like university tests, that is fine (I do not believe they are perfect either). But, they do a decent job of determining if a student knows a specific set of facts and can solve a specific set of problems. I have graded these tests before and no where during the process do I ask myself how long someone studied (because I don't know how long people studied). Very smart people can ace tests with minimal studying. Some people do poorly after studying a lot.
- Retric 10y ago
  The problem is final GPA means almost nothing. High School Valedictorians are an interesting population because they tend to do poorly in life. Prodigies similarly underperform vs expected results. So, when you look objectively you find the most highly paid author has zero relevant accolades. in academic terms, gave the appearance of doing what was necessary".[18] Rowling recalls doing little work, preferring to listen to The Smiths and read Dickens and Tolkien
  - selestify 10y ago
    > The problem is final GPA means almost nothing. High School Valedictorians are an interesting population because they tend to do poorly in life. Prodigies similarly underperform vs expected results. Interesting, do we have any explanations for this phenomena?
    - Retric 10y ago
      Not sure how much research backs this up, but I think it's a change in what's important. A 10 year old who copies someone else brilliantly is praised, an adult doing the same thing makes minim wage. "Even prodigies who avoid burnout and resist social pressures are unlikely to make a big splash as an adult. The problem, notes giftedness researcher Ellen Winner, is that to make a major contribution in the arts, and even the sciences "you need a rebellious spirit and the type of mind that can see new things." Most prodigies, however, are acclaimed not for their innovation but "for doing something that's already been done, like playing the violin in the style of Itzhak Perlman." Only prodigies who can reinvent themselves as innovators, she says, are likely to leave a lasting mark during adulthood." https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200511/why-prodigies-fail https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200511/why-prodigie...
      - crazy2be 10y ago
        Well, I guess it all depends on what you mean by do poorly in life. High school valedictorians and child prodigies (especially the former) are disproportionately likely to hold positions of societal power. Just read the bio of any president of the IMF or the World Bank or the Federal Reserve. Essentially all of them graduate university summa cum laude or magna cum laude. Innovative scientists and people who move the world forward? Perhaps less likely to come from this group, for a variety of reasons.
        Retric 10y ago
        Sure, when all you need for 'successes' is to be accepted credentials are useful. But, that just means you where picked it does not mean you actually succeeded at something. It's the difference between getting funding, and not just having an IPO but actually pay real dividends for significantly more than total investments.
      - goldenkey 10y ago
        That's exactly what I was thinking when I commented above. Getting the highest marks across the board in school shows more about obedience and spending all your time studying, rather than an innate intellect.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  One thing I really appreciated in higher education was to be graded based only on an exam where our name was unknown to the persons who graded us. I skipped a lot of boring lessons, read the books (yes, practical and visual type) and got really good grades.
wfo 10y ago
They are pretty objective, but you're right they are oriented around what's testable. This mostly is true in large intro classes -- specialized grad courses (well really qualifiers), advanced undergrad courses with 10 students, they're testing good work. But what's testable is generally straightforward and pretty easy. So if a student can't even do well on what's testable they don't have a prayer at moving farther than that. Excepting for students with special needs, learning disabilities, etc. It's like if we wanted to test someone's ability to run a mile but had no way to measure time. We'd still test them to see if they could complete it, and if they can't, well they certainly can't do it quickly. But anyone competent can most certainly pass that basic test. Grades aren't an opportunity to show off, they're an opportunity to express basic competence.

jartelt 10y ago

No, I am just arguing that someone's grade on a test is directly linked to how well they do on the test and not necessarily on how much studying they did. If you don't like university tests, that is fine (I do not believe they are perfect either). But, they do a decent job of determining if a student knows a specific set of facts and can solve a specific set of problems. I have graded these tests before and no where during the process do I ask myself how long someone studied (because I don't know how long people studied). Very smart people can ace tests with minimal studying. Some people do poorly after studying a lot.

Retric 10y ago
The problem is final GPA means almost nothing. High School Valedictorians are an interesting population because they tend to do poorly in life. Prodigies similarly underperform vs expected results. So, when you look objectively you find the most highly paid author has zero relevant accolades. in academic terms, gave the appearance of doing what was necessary".[18] Rowling recalls doing little work, preferring to listen to The Smiths and read Dickens and Tolkien
- selestify 10y ago
  > The problem is final GPA means almost nothing. High School Valedictorians are an interesting population because they tend to do poorly in life. Prodigies similarly underperform vs expected results. Interesting, do we have any explanations for this phenomena?
  - Retric 10y ago
    Not sure how much research backs this up, but I think it's a change in what's important. A 10 year old who copies someone else brilliantly is praised, an adult doing the same thing makes minim wage. "Even prodigies who avoid burnout and resist social pressures are unlikely to make a big splash as an adult. The problem, notes giftedness researcher Ellen Winner, is that to make a major contribution in the arts, and even the sciences "you need a rebellious spirit and the type of mind that can see new things." Most prodigies, however, are acclaimed not for their innovation but "for doing something that's already been done, like playing the violin in the style of Itzhak Perlman." Only prodigies who can reinvent themselves as innovators, she says, are likely to leave a lasting mark during adulthood." https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200511/why-prodigies-fail https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200511/why-prodigie...
    - crazy2be 10y ago
      Well, I guess it all depends on what you mean by do poorly in life. High school valedictorians and child prodigies (especially the former) are disproportionately likely to hold positions of societal power. Just read the bio of any president of the IMF or the World Bank or the Federal Reserve. Essentially all of them graduate university summa cum laude or magna cum laude. Innovative scientists and people who move the world forward? Perhaps less likely to come from this group, for a variety of reasons.
      - Retric 10y ago
        Sure, when all you need for 'successes' is to be accepted credentials are useful. But, that just means you where picked it does not mean you actually succeeded at something. It's the difference between getting funding, and not just having an IPO but actually pay real dividends for significantly more than total investments.
    - goldenkey 10y ago
      That's exactly what I was thinking when I commented above. Getting the highest marks across the board in school shows more about obedience and spending all your time studying, rather than an innate intellect.
reitanqild 10y ago
One thing I really appreciated in higher education was to be graded based only on an exam where our name was unknown to the persons who graded us. I skipped a lot of boring lessons, read the books (yes, practical and visual type) and got really good grades.

wfo 10y ago

They are pretty objective, but you're right they are oriented around what's testable. This mostly is true in large intro classes -- specialized grad courses (well really qualifiers), advanced undergrad courses with 10 students, they're testing good work. But what's testable is generally straightforward and pretty easy. So if a student can't even do well on what's testable they don't have a prayer at moving farther than that. Excepting for students with special needs, learning disabilities, etc. It's like if we wanted to test someone's ability to run a mile but had no way to measure time. We'd still test them to see if they could complete it, and if they can't, well they certainly can't do it quickly. But anyone competent can most certainly pass that basic test. Grades aren't an opportunity to show off, they're an opportunity to express basic competence.