3 ms·
In the school setting that he's giving the example in, I see it like this (on a personal level): On a 4.0 scale here in Canada, 90+ is a 4.0. This means regard
by Shenglong 15y ago
In the school setting that he's giving the example in, I see it like this (on a personal level):
On a 4.0 scale here in Canada, 90+ is a 4.0. This means regardless of whether you get a 90 or a 100, you still end up with the same GPA.
I make an explicit effort not to get above or under 90. 91 and 92 is unavoidable at times, but when I get a 98 or 100, I feel like I've just wasted a bunch of time. If I didn't study much, I shouldn't have studied at all. If I didn't study at all, I probably should have gone to the exam late, etc.
In an ordinary context, I think a lot of us understand the balance between reward and effort. And of course, reward tends to come with diminishing returns as a function of effort. I really think that's the reason we all don't try very hard for everything.
...Unless there's a lot of money involved... then it's different.
- mitcheme 15y agoI don't really see the point in making an explicit effort to avoid doing meaningful work. If your GPA is really the only reward you're getting in all of your classes, maybe you're going to the wrong school. Sure, I lazed off in Computing Ethics because it was a total joke (easy A, unqualified prof, poor course design). But I definitely got more than a letter grade out of my classes on algorithms, GUI design, best development practices, etc. For the courses with real value, I might as well get as close to 100% of that value as I can, even if I only get `credit` for the first 90%. Maybe it's just because I come from a working class family, but it seems so wasteful to throw that last 10% away on purpose. (University doesn't have a lot of money involved...?) Yeah you can learn it later in your own time, but why not just learn it right away and spend that time later diving deeper or exploring other areas?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]