College : "C" grade analogy from professor.

[robert_columbia]

Way back when, I took a class. This professor, as part of one of the early lectures, gave us a list of "myths" that we should dispel. One of the "myths" was that a C was good enough. He stated that a C was "terrible" and made the analogy of a person hired to paint a house. The person painted 3 out of the 4 walls and then left, which amounted to a 75% == C. We were apparently supposed to realize that a painter who only paints 75% of the walls that he is hired to paint is a terrible at their job, and apply that to academic grades. I'm not so sure that this was a fair analogy. What do you think?

[Bosstone]

I think he should leave the pressure to overachieve to the parents. By that logic, anything less than 100% isn't good enough.

[Shagnasty]

It depends on the grading scale. A 'C' can mean whatever an individual professor wants it to mean. A professor that grades more like a normal curve would give 'C''s to most people. They painted all the walls but not skipped a few spots. They did an average job. There is nothing wrong with that type of 'C'. For other professors, you would have to show up to the job high and paint the cat rather than the walls to get a 'C' so it is worse than his description of a partial job.

The professor's analogy isn't true in general. In many classes, both the difficulty of the assignments and the grading scale are set by the professor and have no fixed point like 75%. Some college science classes are so difficult that you can literally get an 'A' on tests with a 40% score with the average being about 20%. In other classes, you just have to show up to get an 'A'.

[Ravenman]

A huge culture shock from going to grad school in Britain is that anything over 70 is pretty much equivalent to getting an A. I think the first paper I wrote was given like a 68 or something and I almost died of shock: how could I get a D+ on this paper I was fairly proud of?

Truth be told, trying to explain the importance of grades by using analogies is pretty weak. Getting three-quarters of the questions right in high school isn't the worst thing ever; the same in grad school is an embarrassment; getting on base three-quarters of the time in baseball is the stuff of legend; trying to fly a plane with three-quarters of its parts is suicidal.

Perhaps the professor would be satisfied if he was paid 94% of his salary -- that's an A, right?

[Elmer J. Fudd]

We were apparently supposed to realize that a painter who only paints 75% of the walls that he is hired to paint is a terrible at their job, and apply that to academic grades.

That's not a "C". That's an "Incomplete". A "C" would be if the quality of the painter's work was neither better than most nor worse than most.

[Otara]

The one I always heard was the pilot who got 90%, but completely stuffed up the landing section of the exam.

Its not so much meant to say that you should get 100, as that a high score doesnt always tell the complete story.

Otara

[Driver8]

That's not a "C". That's an "Incomplete". A "C" would be if the quality of the painter's work was neither better than most nor worse than most.This is the correct analogy. If a "C" is just enough to pass, then it is equivalent in this silly analogy as a job that is just acceptable to the house owner. I would assume that leaving out a wall would typically be unacceptable.

[don't ask]

I give this analogy a C- a little more thought next time Prof.

[Enginerd]

Stupid analogy - the C student gets a degree. That painter gets fired.

[TriPolar]

There's a couple of big problems with the analogy.

First, the painter isn't paying the homeowner to paint the house. Second, the painter's 'grade' is not going to become irrelevant as soon as he graduates.

[Farmer Jane]

I return all "C" papers and exams to students. I won't take them.

[robert_columbia]

I think he should leave the pressure to overachieve to the parents. By that logic, anything less than 100% isn't good enough.

Which is one of the reasons why the analogy may not be good. He was treating the idea of painting a wall as black and white - either paint the wall, or don't paint the wall. Painting a wall gets you a 100% = A, and not painting the wall gets you a 0. In real life, you can paint a wall, but fail to apply sufficient primer, leading to a non-perfect painted wall. "Good work, but the paint is a little thin on the bottom, and there's a 20% chance it may start to run when the rain comes. B-". But then it still may not be truly analogous, since a painter who messes up too many walls is going to get fired.

[Farmer Jane]

Or the professor thinks that anyone who wants an A can get it if he/she tries, so if you got an 75, you did 75 per cent of the work. Slacker.

[YaraMateo]

I like how everyone is defending getting Cs. The dope is actually defending "good enough". This is going to be one of the threads where I find myself thinking I thought I knew the Dope. Anyway, I agree with the professor. Using his analogy, a C shows you know the material but not well enough. You know how to paint a wall, but will probably do a bad job doing so with the knowledge (and effort) you've used in the class. I think a C is ok. I really think there is something wrong with a C if it's your major or something.

[Chronos]

I like how everyone is defending getting Cs. The dope is actually defending "good enough".Yes, that's kind of the definition of "good enough". What are you saying, that "good enough" isn't good enough?

[YaraMateo]

Yes, that's kind of the definition of "good enough". What are you saying, that "good enough" isn't good enough?

I guess was wrong in assuming most Dopers strived to be above average and frowned upon people who just got by for doing "good enough". No, good enough is far from enough. Unless, you're happy being a loser. (The general you).

[Farmer Jane]

I am of the opinion that college is not for C students and colleges need to stop accepting that shit. But I'm also in graduate school, so maybe I understand the value of an 85 or above.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

No, good enough is far from enough.
So if good enough isn't good enough, what's good enough?

Seriously, some of y'all sound like you live in Lake Woebegone. C is an average grade. Are you suggesting that the average college students shouldn't be there, so that everyone who remains should be above average? Are y'all lit majors or something?

[Tarwater]

A loser would be getting Ds and Fs.

Also,
I guess was wrong in assuming most Dopers

I'm going to give you a C- for this sentence. I understand what you're trying to say, but in the future, try to be a little more diligent. I've always said that diligence is the difference between a C- sentence and an A sentence. I have no doubt you're capable of improving yourself and your sentence construction. I look forward to your progress. I think you're capable of great things.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Not exactly an analogy, but on the first day of orientation for engineering the Dean told us that some of us would be A students, and we would go on to become great professors or researchers. Some of us would be B students and we would become really great professional engineers. Some of us would be C students and would go on to make millions of dollars as entrepreneurs. It was a joke, but only sort of.

[Otara]

I could see myself as being awfully happy with a C at Harvard and devastated at a C in community college.

'Average' needs a context.

Otara

[Tarwater]

I could see myself as being awfully happy with a C at Harvard and devastated at a C in community college.

'Average' needs a context.

Otara

Why? Harvard isn't an excellent school because they require more of their students, intellectually, than other schools. Their grading process is largely commensurate with other universities. A C grade at Harvard isn't a B grade or an A grade elsewhere. With the exception of a community college, of course. But still, a C grade isn't something you should be content with just because you took the class at Harvard.

[Wesley Clark]

I once had a professor tell me a B was average and a C was below average in college, or at least for his class. Fair enough. But I got several C-'s and still graduated. So ha. Give me the C student I can work with and communicate with over the condescending A- student whose philosophy makes them think grades matter in the real world.

[Wesley Clark]

Or the professor thinks that anyone who wants an A can get it if he/she tries, so if you got an 75, you did 75 per cent of the work. Slacker.

A professor whose class is all As is going to think something is wrong soon and make the class harder to have some diversity. A "C" at MIT is pretty good, and I'm sure lots of C students at MIT would have 4.0 GPAs at community college. Grades are largely dependent on who your classmates are, not on how well you comprehend the material long enough to take the test, then forget 90% of it in a month.

[YaraMateo]

So if good enough isn't good enough, what's good enough?

Seriously, some of y'all sound like you live in Lake Woebegone. C is an average grade. Are you suggesting that the average college students shouldn't be there, so that everyone who remains should be above average? Are y'all lit majors or something?

Good enough is enough if you're happy to be average and go no where. If you want to be a sucess in your give field, you have to either strive to be the best or give your best. If you're just going be unmemorable and average why bother? If "good enough" is enough, just go collect unemployment and welfare. That's good enough. :rolleyes:

I agree with the person who posted above me. If you can't do better than a C (even if it's just lack of trying) you shouldn't be in college. Either get your shit together (if it's lack of trying) or realize college isn't high school the sequel. You don't have to go. If you don't belong there, you're jut brining down the value of everyone's degree. It's like do you have to tell ugly people maybe entering a beauty contest is a bad idea? :smack:

I'm not a lit major.

[Otara]

"If you want to be a sucess in your give field, you have to either strive to be the best or give your best.'

You seem to think it isnt possible for a person to do that and still get a C. People improve for a start, I know many people who got C's and then progressed to B or A equivalents over time.

Kind of hard to not start reading some of these replies as not particularly indirect chestbeating.

Otara

[Wesley Clark]

Good enough is enough if you're happy to be average and go no where. If you want to be a sucess in your give field, you have to either strive to be the best or give your best. If you're just going be unmemorable and average why bother? If "good enough" is enough, just go collect unemployment and welfare. That's good enough. :rolleyes:

I agree with the person who posted above me. If you can't do better than a C (even if it's just lack of trying) you shouldn't be in college. Either get your shit together (if it's lack of trying) or realize college isn't high school the sequel. You don't have to go. If you don't belong there, you're jut brining down the value of everyone's degree. It's like do you have to tell ugly people maybe entering a beauty contest is a bad idea? :smack:

I'm not a lit major.

In what fields do academic grades matter to your career outcome? Here is what I can think of:

Law schools (being top of your class matters for your career)
Undergrad if you are intending to go to grad school
If your goal is to become a professor, it matters

But what else? Also why are people assuming grades are the same thing as learning? My college roommate had all As, and like me (I was a B- student) he forgot the vast majority of what he learned soon after the test was taken. Grades don't determine how competent you are to live life, or how expert you are in a field. They determine how well you learn to answer test questions relative to your classmates and professor.

I think in real life the soft skills, especially good interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, matter more for success than grades.

[YaraMateo]

"If you want to be a sucess in your give field, you have to either strive to be the best or give your best.'

You seem to think it isnt possible for a person to do that and still get a C. People improve for a start, I know many people who got C's and then progressed to B or A equivalents over time.

Kind of hard to not start reading some of these replies as not particularly indirect chestbeating.

Otara

If people improve, then isn't the person who always got As going improve and be better than the person who go Cs? I would hire the first over the second.

[j666]

I like how everyone is defending getting Cs.
I challenge you. I think in all posts before yours more people derided the analogy than defended Cs.

And it was a terrible analogy. Terrible. The instructor obviously never painted a house.

[YaraMateo]

In what fields do academic grades matter to your career outcome? Here is what I can think of:

Law schools (being top of your class matters for your career)
Undergrad if you are intending to go to grad school
If your goal is to become a professor, it matters

But what else? Also why are people assuming grades are the same thing as learning? My college roommate had all As, and like me (I was a B- student) he forgot the vast majority of what he learned soon after the test was taken. Grades don't determine how competent you are to live life, or how expert you are in a field. They determine how well you learn to answer test questions relative to your classmates and professor.

I think in real life the soft skills, especially good interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, matter more for success than grades.

I can find many things I disagree with in this, but I have to say I THINK it's easy to say grade don't matter when you didn't get As and weren't the top of your class. I'd take that statement more seriously from a person who had a 4.0.

[UncleRojelio]

If your scholarship depends upon you maintaining a 3.2 GPA then getting C's means you fail.

[YaraMateo]

I challenge you. I think in all posts before yours more people derided the analogy than defended Cs.

And it was a terrible analogy. Terrible. The instructor obviously never painted a house.

It's NOT the best, but it's accurate. A C is 3 out of 4. I think it's one thing to get a C, but when people see what a C is (3 out o 4) they get up in arms.

[Farmer Jane]

Getting a 75 per cent is great when you're a politician looking for votes, but a 75 isn't great on a math test.

[Shagnasty]

Getting a 75 per cent is great when you're a politician looking for votes, but a 75 isn't great on a math test.

It depends on the test. There are some tests where hardly anyone could score that high and some where it would be a shame if anybody scored less. There is nothing magic about 75% without knowing what it is being tested.

[j666]

It's NOT the best, but it's accurate. A C is 3 out of 4. I think it's one thing to get a C, but when people see what a C is (3 out o 4) they get up in arms.

No, it is not accurate, for all the reasons given above. Painting walls is not the same as learning material or taking a test.

3 out of 4 walls isn't a C, it's an Incomplete.

A student with Cs graduates; the painter of 3 walls doesn't not get the rest of the fee.

A C does not indicate perfect knowledge of 3/4 of the material and no knowledge of the rest.

I graduated with honors and I do all my own painting; I have the credentials to asset this is a terrible analogy.

Removing only 3/4 of the weeds in a garden would be good - strong visual imagery with implied ongoing deleterious effects - much better analogy.

[YaraMateo]

No, it is not accurate, for all the reasons given above. Painting walls is not the same as learning material or taking a test.

3 out of 4 walls isn't a C, it's an Incomplete.

A student with Cs graduates; the painter of 3 walls doesn't not get the rest of the fee.

A C does not indicate perfect knowledge of 3/4 of the material and no knowledge of the rest.

I graduated with honors and I do all my own painting; I have the credentials to asset this is a terrible analogy.

Removing only 3/4 of the weeds in a garden would be good - strong visual imagery with implied ongoing deleterious effects - much better analogy.

If you really think about it, though, most work that is considered a C is imcomplete in some form. Even if it just means you don't understand the material as COMPLETELY as the A student in the class. That's imcomplete.

So, I still think it's accurate. 75% = 75%. I don't know where people are getting the idea of not doing ALL of the work means you don't have to pay for what was done. You get 75% of the pay. You didn't completely do the work or understand the material. You get 75% of the grade.

[Rigamarole]

Better analogy would be that the painter paints the whole house, but does a mediocre job of it. The house will still sell, but it not might get quite the top dollar that it would have had he done an excellent job.

[Rigamarole]

I am of the opinion that college is not for C students and colleges need to stop accepting that shit. But I'm also in graduate school, so maybe I understand the value of an 85 or above.

Surely then, being in graduate school, you understand the fact that the traditional academic grading system is (or at least was, at some point in time before grade inflation got out of control) designed specifically to grade along a normalized curve. So if all the current C students dropped out or weren't accepted in the first place, then the C + 1 sigma (whatever grade that corresponds to) students become the C students.

[needscoffee]

I am of the opinion that college is not for C students and colleges need to stop accepting that shit. But I'm also in graduate school, so maybe I understand the value of an 85 or above.What elitist crap - only the top 25% deserve a college education; the rest can go work at a gas station. Why would you deny the rest higher education? Do you think they're not learning anything at all?

[Farmer Jane]

It depends on the test. There are some tests where hardly anyone could score that high and some where it would be a shame if anybody scored less. There is nothing magic about 75% without knowing what it is being tested.

Then that's a crappily written test. :)

I don't believe in making tests impossible. I think all educators should say what they mean and mean what they say. Their tests should reflect knowledge that students should know at that period. You wouldn't take a licensing exam on shit that wasn't covered, would you? And if you did (like, say, the Praxis for teachers, which is is crazy), then all scores above X per cent are equally valid.

Grade inflation (of any kind) is horrible. It wrecks everything: admissions, grading, GPAs, job market prospects, etc.

So yeah, John Kerry's C average at Yale isn't impressive.

Let me put it this way: Would you wanted to be treated by a doctor who only knew 75 per cent of what was required of him? Of course not.

College should be for serious students. You can join a frat and make bad decisions, but you should also, oh, I don't know, do your fucking job.

[Enginerd]

You're trying to redefine the entire grading system. In every undergrad institution I know of, a C is a passing grade. It means that you've demonstrated a satisfactory knowledge of the material. I don't know about med school, but undergrad engineers who get Cs graduate, get jobs, and design the bridges you drive over every day. Accountants who get Cs keep track of your money. Business majors who get Cs manage the stores you patronize every day. A C student gets a diploma and becomes a productive member of society.

You claim that you're against grade inflation, and you also claim that you won't accept anything other than A work. How does that work?

[Enginerd]

Getting a 75 per cent is great when you're a politician looking for votes, but a 75 isn't great on a math test.

I've taken math tests - in grad school, even - where 75% was a stellar score. At least it would have been, had anyone hit it. I've given a few, too.

That doesn't mean they're badly designed tests Particularly for a grad class, I tend to assume that the students know the basic material. What I want from this kind of exam is to find out who can take those basics and extend them to the kind of problems that they haven't seen. I test on stuff that wasn't explicitly covered all the time, and it gives me a much better handle on who really understands and who's just getting by.

What do you learn from a test where everybody scores an 85 or better? To me, that's a lousy test.

[Farmer Jane]

You're trying to redefine the entire grading system. In every undergrad institution I know of, a C is a passing grade. It means that you've demonstrated a satisfactory knowledge of the material. I don't know about med school, but undergrad engineers who get Cs graduate, get jobs, and design the bridges you drive over every day. Accountants who get Cs keep track of your money. Business majors who get Cs manage the stores you patronize every day. A C student gets a diploma and becomes a productive member of society.

You claim that you're against grade inflation, and you also claim that you won't accept anything other than A work. How does that work?

I accept As and Bs. Satisfactory is not meeting my expectations. I don't take 82 or below. I give it back to the student and they can correct it. If they don't, they get a zero.

You fail my class if you want to, but you can't pass without working for it.

My exams are not easy, I taught ESL in a metro area school and I'm constantly thanked for my work. I put it a lot of effort when I teach. My students (generally) appreciate it.

[Farmer Jane]

You're trying to redefine the entire grading system. In every undergrad institution I know of, a C is a passing grade. It means that you've demonstrated a satisfactory knowledge of the material. I don't know about med school, but undergrad engineers who get Cs graduate, get jobs, and design the bridges you drive over every day. Accountants who get Cs keep track of your money. Business majors who get Cs manage the stores you patronize every day. A C student gets a diploma and becomes a productive member of society.

You claim that you're against grade inflation, and you also claim that you won't accept anything other than A work. How does that work?

I've taken math tests - in grad school, even - where 75% was a stellar score. At least it would have been, had anyone hit it. I've given a few, too.

That doesn't mean they're badly designed tests Particularly for a grad class, I tend to assume that the students know the basic material. What I want from this kind of exam is to find out who can take those basics and extend them to the kind of problems that they haven't seen. I test on stuff that wasn't explicitly covered all the time, and it gives me a much better handle on who really understands and who's just getting by.

What do you learn from a test where everybody scores an 85 or better? To me, that's a lousy test.

There's a difference between testing to see where students are and testing for grades. I test where students are all the time. I expect my first test to get a lot of F's...but that score isn't graded.

If most kids fail the test, I use it for the 'actual' graded test. Exact same test. No shockers. No multiple choice, either. (Obviously math means changing around numbers and such, but I teach social studies.)

[Enginerd]

Wait, do you teach high school? That's a totally different learning environment.

When you define C work as unacceptable, you're inflating grades. By giving less capable students and slackers multiple tries to get things right, you're devaluing the A's earned by the really smart, hardworking kids who get it right on the first go around. If you're not giving out C's to average students, your A's and B's mean less than they should.

It's not surprising, I guess, but it makes my job harder when I get them in college. College students are adults, and they get to set their own priorities. I'd like for my class to be one of them, but I won't take it personally if it isn't. If Timmy wants to go out drinking Thursday night and scrawl down some chickenscratch to turn in Friday morning, I'll grade the chickenscratch and move one. But I won't give him another try - he made the decision and he gets to live with it. He'll have more homework assignments to bring his grade up, but it's ultimately his grade to earn. All I do is record it.

[Farmer Jane]

Wait, do you teach high school? That's a totally different learning environment.

When you define C work as unacceptable, you're inflating grades. By giving less capable students and slackers multiple tries to get things right, you're devaluing the A's earned by the really smart, hardworking kids who get it right on the first go around. If you're not giving out C's to average students, your A's and B's mean less than they should.

I never said they get full points back. They get some.

If a student fucks up the first round, then they aren't getting an A when they return their paper to me. I just don't take your shit if you are a) failing because you don't get it or b) failing because you're lazy.

Why would I teach if you don't get the material? Classes should be progressive - as in, we build on previous knowledge.

In my grad program, if I get an 81 per cent I have to retake the class. In my classroom, if a kid gets a 79 per cent on an exam, he/she has to fix it for me to enter a grade. All students have to correct errors.

Oh yeah, I'm also a fan of well-written essay exams.

[shiftless]

When I was in grad school you were expected to keep a 3.0 GPA. If you made to many Cs you were out. I guess the point was that every student there was expected to be above average. At the end of the day though, the professors decide what grades everyone gets and my school had decided to only use the top end of the measuring stick so it looked like everybody was smart. I guess a really good school would only give out A, A- and A+ grades?

[Wendell Wagner]

CitizenPained writes:

> So yeah, John Kerry's C average at Yale isn't impressive.

I'm not sure why you're picking particularly on John Kerry. Yeah, he didn't get very good grades as an undergraduate. Like George W. Bush, he was a C+ student. He was recognized in college as a brilliant orator, winning prizes for his debating skills. He then joined the Navy and served in Vietnam. After leaving the Navy, he became known for his anti-war activism. He got into Boston College Law School and became a lawyer. I'm not sure what this proves except that it's possible to be a C+ student (at Yale, admittedly) in college and yet have the skills to do very well after college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm

[Count Blucher]

I guess it would be irresponsible for students in the lecture to paint 3 walls of the professors house and leave a CD player by the front door playing "Everybody Wants To Rule the World" on continuous loop.

[Malthus]

Obviously, it depends on the context, as others have said.

I still remember the shock of going from undergrad in university to law school. In my undergrad, it was relatively easy to get good grades - if you chose your classes carefully to suit your interests. In law school, it was damn near impossible, no matter how hard you worked (thought it was also difficult to do really badly) - pretty well everyone got C's and B's, and those who got straight A's (or failed) were, to put it mildly, unusual.

In Law School, because of the rigidity of grading, you had to distinguish yourself not by getting better marks than the average (nearly impossible), but by doing extra-curricular stuff - working on the law review, working as a legal researcher for the profs, doing moot court, getting published, stuff like that.

[kayaker]

What if you paint all four walls and the ceiling, but when you paint the trim work you get just a bit of paint on the glass, then when using a razor blade to scrape the stray paint off you accidentally remove a glazier's point?

[Farmer Jane]

Wendell, thank you for the biographical campaign talking points of John Kerry. I didn't know any of that before I voted for him [in the general] after I voted against him [in the primary].

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Good enough is enough if you're happy to be average and go no where. If you want to be a sucess in your give field, you have to either strive to be the best or give your best. If you're just going be unmemorable and average why bother? If "good enough" is enough, just go collect unemployment and welfare. That's good enough. :rolleyes:

I agree with the person who posted above me. If you can't do better than a C (even if it's just lack of trying) you shouldn't be in college. Either get your shit together (if it's lack of trying) or realize college isn't high school the sequel. You don't have to go. If you don't belong there, you're jut brining down the value of everyone's degree. It's like do you have to tell ugly people maybe entering a beauty contest is a bad idea? :smack:

I'm not a lit major.I got one A- in college, from a professor that never returned a paper to me, forgot about meetings, and critiqued my papers for having too specific theses instead of making sweeping generalizations about the entire world's history during, say, the 19th century :rolleyes:. Otherwise I was a straight-A student.

Bear that in mind when I say that your post shows a serious lack of understanding of what an average grade means. It's impossible for everyone to score above average.

[billfish678]

I'm not sure what this proves except that it's possible to be a C+ student (at Yale, admittedly) in college and yet have the skills to do very well after college.



But maybe if he had made straight A's he'd been president :)

This thread reads like the academic version of the sports world's "gotta give 110 percent ! "

[Farmer Jane]

There's average relative to population and there's 'average' as 'so-so'.

I agree with this:

These changes in grading have had a profound influence on college life and learning. When students walk into a classroom knowing that they can go through the motions and get a B+ or better, that's what they tend to do, give minimal effort.


Perhaps this is why the professor made the comment (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0324/p09s02-coop.html)?

My classes have higher grades because I don't give them a choice. Other classes have higher grades because the teachers are lazy or the school demands them to inflate grades.

If the average grade is a 3.7, what does that say?

[Wesley Clark]

I can find many things I disagree with in this, but I have to say I THINK it's easy to say grade don't matter when you didn't get As and weren't the top of your class. I'd take that statement more seriously from a person who had a 4.0.

Well here is the funny part. My first year of college I was in a smaller school doing general study pre-req courses and had all As with two A-s. I did about 30 credit hours my first year (I forgot exactly how many), but all As with a couple A-s.

Then I transferred to a bigger school and changed my major to something harder and started getting a lot more Bs and Cs. At the first school I was competing with the best HS student in the county/city region doing general courses. At the second school I was competing with the best students in the state (I went to a flagship university) and did a fairly difficult major. Several of my classmates at the second school were valedictorians and salutatorians.

So I have been an A student and top of my class. Had I stayed at the smaller school I would've graduated with a 3.9 or something. Like I said, it doesn't matter. What matters it the people I was competing with for grades went up in quality when I transferred.

Fundamentally it comes down to competition and who you are competing with, and what kinds of grades your professor feels comfortable giving. Some don't like giving more than 20% of the class As, some give 60% of them As. Classmates at MIT will be better than those at community college.

[Magiver]

That's not a "C". That's an "Incomplete". A "C" would be if the quality of the painter's work was neither better than most nor worse than most. This.

It's disturbing that someone in the business of imparting knowledge should be this bad at using an analogy.

[Really Not All That Bright]

College should be for serious students. You can join a frat and make bad decisions, but you should also, oh, I don't know, do your fucking job.
When you take over the world and kick all the B-or-worse students out, grading will be kind of pointless.

[bump]

I agree with the person who posted above me. If you can't do better than a C (even if it's just lack of trying) you shouldn't be in college.

Unless you're talking about cumulative GPAs, that's pretty much a C- statement right there- it's about 2/3 or so correct.


People have subjects they're good in, and subjects that they're not so good in. The mere fact of making a C in a particular course means nothing- the main reasons would be lack of preparation (long-term, prerequisites), lack of preparation (short-term, not studying), bad performance on the testing/homework events, and finally just not having a knack for that particular subject.

I'd say that if you're busting your hump and still making a C average, you should probably rethink your chosen field, but making a C in a given course doesn't mean anything.


I mean, I have a BS in Computer Science (top 50 program), a MBA (top 50 program) and a MS in IT & Mgmt. I made many Cs in the undergrad, and one in graduate school, even though I graduated with a B average in undergrad, and an A average in both master's degrees.

Think I shouldn't have gone to college?

[njtt]

In reality, in the U.S. college courses I taught and graded, a C meant "not totally clueless and/or illiterate." "You can write a coherent sentence and appear to have listened and done the set reading at least some of the time," got you a B.

[Magiver]

Unless you're talking about cumulative GPAs, that's pretty much a C- statement right there- it's about 2/3 or so correct.


People have subjects they're good in, and subjects that they're not so good in. The mere fact of making a C in a particular course means nothing- the main reasons would be lack of preparation (long-term, prerequisites), lack of preparation (short-term, not studying), bad performance on the testing/homework events, and finally just not having a knack for that particular subject.

I'd say that if you're busting your hump and still making a C average, you should probably rethink your chosen field, but making a C in a given course doesn't mean anything.


I mean, I have a BS in Computer Science (top 50 program), a MBA (top 50 program) and a MS in IT & Mgmt. I made many Cs in the undergrad, and one in graduate school, even though I graduated with a B average in undergrad, and an A average in both master's degrees.

Think I shouldn't have gone to college? The reality of college is that many of the courses are bullshit designed to contribute to some form of educational rounding. Graduate school represents a focus on a specific educational discipline.

[typoink]

I like how everyone is defending getting Cs. The dope is actually defending "good enough".

If there's something Dopers hate more than mediocrity, it's ill-formed analogies.

...right, guys?

[Rigamarole]

If there's something Dopers hate more than mediocrity, it's ill-formed analogies.

...right, guys?

I thought it was improper grammar.

[Farmer Jane]

Professors that are only comfortable giving As to the top 20 per cent are either lazy or full of themselves or are just bad teachers.

Dear God, too many professors horrible teachers!

Is it really such a novel idea that college is about learning? Shouldn't my professor teach?

[silenus]

Just as a data point, a passing (3) score on the AP European History test is =/- 37%. If you get an aggregate score of 68/180, you get credit and a 3. It all depends on the test and the competition.

[Farmer Jane]

Right, but the AP Euro History test is massive and isn't really designed for 'everyone who took the class to pass'. It's several standards above one's normal high school history class.

But if you are in, say, Microecon 101 and you get a 70 per cent on a test, I'm not so sure you know what the f you're doing.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Professors that are only comfortable giving As to the top 20 per cent are either lazy or full of themselves or are just bad teachers.

Or they teach hard courses. First year law school courses are graded on a C curve, which means most of the class will get Cs, and a certain percentage of students are generally required to fail.

[Farmer Jane]

Or they teach hard courses. First year law school courses are graded on a C curve, which means most of the class will get Cs, and a certain percentage of students are generally required to fail.

So you're not paying for an education; you're paying to compete against others in an academic world that (ironically) rarely uses a rubric and grading is subjective.

Check.

edit: I've had hard courses taught by this man (http://mershoncenter.osu.edu/people/faculty/facultybios/kalu.htm) and his policy was, "You have time to sleep when you die. No excuses." His policy was not, "Only 20 per cent of you are getting As, damn it."

[DHMO]

I have always believed that, in a perfect world, if every instructor did an adequate job of presenting the material, and all of the students were diligent in studying the material, every student would get an "A". In reality, however, many instructors grade on a "curve", whereby many students, while having a better-than-average knowledge of the material, still get a "C" because some of the other students in the class did better. It is not a question of only doing 3/4 of the work, or not applying oneself to studying.

To my perspective, it is the instructors' job to convey all the required information to ace the course with a score of 100% to each and every student. If there are some in the class who do not measure up to that standard, it is a failing on the part of the instructor, not the student.

Plus, if all those students getting a "C" or lower (who some here maintain are in over their heads and ought to re-think whether they should be in college at all) left, by definition half of those students remaining would be "C" grade students, or lower (since they are still graded on a curve.) Lather, rinse and repeat. At what point would the class be composed of only "A" students, when, no matter how well the student has demonstrated knowledge of the material, the midpoint score will always be assigned a "C" grade?

[buddha_david]

"A" students are the ones who end up doing all the work. "B" students become managers or supervisors; "C" students become executives.

[Really Not All That Bright]

So you're not paying for an education; you're paying to compete against others in an academic world that (ironically) rarely uses a rubric and grading is subjective.
Grading on a fixed curve is not subjective, and every law school instructor I've had so far uses a very rigid rubric (allowing for the fact that law is obviously not a hard science).

Fixed curve grading is the only method guaranteed to eliminate grade inflation.

[j666]

"A" students are the ones who end up doing all the work. "B" students become managers or supervisors; "C" students become executives.
Because the C students understand effective allocation of resources. If you are pursuing a degree to enable you to pursue your chosen career (rather than pursuing an education, or perhaps even knowledge) every point above a passing grade is a waste of resource.

Fortunately, A students enjoy doing work. That's why they get As.

[billfish678]

"A" students are the ones who end up doing all the work. "B" students become managers or supervisors; "C" students become executives.

bahh,

Some of the most useless science/engineering types I've known were the A students. They were only actually good at taking test, or regurgitating facts, or doing problems they had seen before, or so smart they never listened to anybody else ever, or just thought because they made good grades way back when they were somehow entitled to be well paid and admired for just hanging around and actual work was for the peons that surrounded them.

Thats not to say I haven't seen similiar behavior from other "grade levels" but I know I seen it enough from the A guys/gals to not assume A = great in real life either.

[Wesley Clark]

So you're not paying for an education; you're paying to compete against others in an academic world that (ironically) rarely uses a rubric and grading is subjective.

Check.

edit: I've had hard courses taught by this man (http://mershoncenter.osu.edu/people/faculty/facultybios/kalu.htm) and his policy was, "You have time to sleep when you die. No excuses." His policy was not, "Only 20 per cent of you are getting As, damn it."

I took a biochemistry course taught by a guy who played a major role in inventing synthetic insulin (B- in that class muthafukka). Several of my professors owned or were starting independent companies based on their research. Most of my professors in math/science did grad work or post grad work at the best universities in the US (Berkeley, MIT, Caltech, Harvard, etc), some of them after doing their undergrad a the best universities in their home countries. But I've had professors who only gave As to 20-30% of the class, and one told us if too many of us got too good of a grade, he would make the material or grading harder next semester.

Like most people, I forgot most of what I learned soon after the test. It really doesn't matter. That is the part I don't get. If I were actually using what I learned in college in the real world (either for my career or my personal interests), then I could understand why it matters. But I don't use it.

[YaraMateo]

I got one A- in college, from a professor that never returned a paper to me, forgot about meetings, and critiqued my papers for having too specific theses instead of making sweeping generalizations about the entire world's history during, say, the 19th century :rolleyes:. Otherwise I was a straight-A student.

Bear that in mind when I say that your post shows a serious lack of understanding of what an average grade means. It's impossible for everyone to score above average.

No one (I'm not!) is saying you have to be the smartest or the best at anything. What I'm saying (and I think the general tone is), is if you can't do better than mostly Cs, you don't belong in college. I think colleges should be run as they are in Europe. Someone was telling me in Europe college is like a tube. Very few people go in, but they all come out. America is like a funnel. Everyone and their mom can attend, but very few actually finish.

To be fair, I think colleges main problem (and I thought this WELL before this thread) is there more about offering a service than a product. In doing this, their product (a degree of any sort) goes down as does their reputation. Colleges shouldn't care as much about money. They should turn many people down.

I also wanted to say that there's a big difference between doing something/finishing something because it's good enough and doing a full job. That's my problem with good enough. Good enough suggests there is more to be done and a lack of effort.

[YaraMateo]

Well here is the funny part. My first year of college I was in a smaller school doing general study pre-req courses and had all As with two A-s. I did about 30 credit hours my first year (I forgot exactly how many), but all As with a couple A-s.

Then I transferred to a bigger school and changed my major to something harder and started getting a lot more Bs and Cs. At the first school I was competing with the best HS student in the county/city region doing general courses. At the second school I was competing with the best students in the state (I went to a flagship university) and did a fairly difficult major. Several of my classmates at the second school were valedictorians and salutatorians.

So I have been an A student and top of my class. Had I stayed at the smaller school I would've graduated with a 3.9 or something. Like I said, it doesn't matter. What matters it the people I was competing with for grades went up in quality when I transferred.

Fundamentally it comes down to competition and who you are competing with, and what kinds of grades your professor feels comfortable giving. Some don't like giving more than 20% of the class As, some give 60% of them As. Classmates at MIT will be better than those at community college.


I really don't understand your point. Are your claiming your classmates were better than you? Or are you just claiming that they were able to play the system better? Either it doesn't make you look good. I think part of it was good enough was enoigh for you. You could have been one of the 20%, but it didn't happen. It seems you have no regret. I don't want to say without offending you (most likely). All I have to say is in my major, I got all As. I got As and Bs in my nonmajor classes. Getting As sometimes met doing more work than some feel required and sometimes it meant being competetive, but not being a small fish in a big pond was also import to me.

In a general way, I can see some people being swayed by a big school. I'm not impressed by a C student from any state school as I'm EQUALLY not impressed by the C student from MIT/YALE/BROWN/HARVARD/ECT. The C tells me they probably didn't belong there.

[YaraMateo]

Unless you're talking about cumulative GPAs, that's pretty much a C- statement right there- it's about 2/3 or so correct.


People have subjects they're good in, and subjects that they're not so good in. The mere fact of making a C in a particular course means nothing- the main reasons would be lack of preparation (long-term, prerequisites), lack of preparation (short-term, not studying), bad performance on the testing/homework events, and finally just not having a knack for that particular subject.

I'd say that if you're busting your hump and still making a C average, you should probably rethink your chosen field, but making a C in a given course doesn't mean anything.


I mean, I have a BS in Computer Science (top 50 program), a MBA (top 50 program) and a MS in IT & Mgmt. I made many Cs in the undergrad, and one in graduate school, even though I graduated with a B average in undergrad, and an A average in both master's degrees.

Think I shouldn't have gone to college?

If you're asking my opinion, I don't think you were qualified to go to college. It sounds like you were just passing gen requirements and prerequists. Thoses classes are just basically 15 weeks of "Did you ever have X course in high school?".

To answer what you seem to be asking first, no. One C is ok in my books with lots of effort. Many C are not ok at all.

[Waenara]

In a general way, I can see some people being swayed by a big school. I'm not impressed by a C student from any state school as I'm EQUALLY not impressed by the C student from MIT/YALE/BROWN/HARVARD/ECT. The C tells me they probably didn't belong there.What you're clearly not understanding it that it really matters how the C grade is calculated before you judge if a student is fit to attend their school.

At my university and in my program (four-year nursing degree), all of the courses have a section in the course syllabus which has a predetermined grading system. In each course I take, you are graded on assignments/exams (as a percent grade), and each assignment is weighted into a final course mark. That final percentage converts to a set letter grade, which converts to a grade point value.

For example, in several of my courses, getting a final percent grade of 60-62% was a C-, which is 1.7 grade points. Similarly, a grade of 95-100% is a A+ (4.0). Each course in my program requires a C- to pass the course and use it as a prerequisite for the next semester's courses.

Now, I have a pretty good GPA (3.7), which means the percentage grade I got in most of my courses was 85-90%.

Each course has it's own grading system, so some courses are easier than others. A C- in one course requires a grade of 62%, while a C- in a harder course might require 57% and a C- in an easier course requires 67%.

In my program, at my university, I would agree with you that I would think that anyone who is intelligent enough to get into the program (which is very competitive), should be able to maintain a B GPA (approx. 75-79%).




HOWEVER, there are two universities in my city that offer a four-year RN degree program. My university uses the fixed percentage to GPA system. The other university's nursing program grades all of their classes on a curve. (Although other faculties at that university use the curve, percentages, or a combination - it varies between faculties/departments).

So at the other university, a fixed percentage of students will definitely fail, and a fixed percentage will get a C, a B, or an A.

You say "a C tell me they don't belong there." Maybe at my university I could kind of agree with you, but if I were going to the other university I would not. If a fixed percentage of the students will get a C or lower, you can't just say that those students shouldn't be there. If grades are on a curve and you lop off the bottom of the curve by kicking out all of the students who got a C, then the next semester the students who previously got B- and B marks will become the lowest part of the curve and will then get the Cs that are required to be given out by the curve.

[Yllaria]

I guess was wrong in assuming most Dopers strived to be above average and frowned upon people who just got by for doing "good enough". No, good enough is far from enough. Unless, you're happy being a loser. (The general you).

In real life, you can always spend more time and money on a project to make it incrementally better. This can be done for an infinite amount of time and money. A good Project Manager knows when the report, the product, the building design, has either reached the point of diminishing returns or has met the contract specs. When the project is good enough, it's time to call it complete and ship and get paid.

A Project Manager who always runs over schedule and over budget because they have to make things perfect, when it is never possible to be perfect, is harming their company's bottom line. This will get noticed, and not in a good way.

If people improve, then isn't the person who always got As going improve and be better than the person who go Cs? I would hire the first over the second.

No. A person who got A's is not necessarily going to be able to take those A's and do a good job. Jobs are not classes. I'd hire whoever has the best track record of doing the job. That probably means not hiring someone straight out of school, unless they've had internships and/or summer jobs.

. . . I don't know where people are getting the idea of not doing ALL of the work means you don't have to pay for what was done. You get 75% of the pay. . . .

What you get paid depends on the contract. For painters (the original analogy) that's usually 50% or less up front and the balance when the job has been completed and accepted. So if you do a 75% job, you get 50% pay and an unhappy customer bad-mouthing you to everyone they can lay a complaint on.

For a long, complicated project, a contractor will be paid roughly monthly for work completed, minus 10% retainage, and they'll have to put up a completion bond for 100% of the estimated cost of the project. Sometimes they will also provide a 100% workmanship bond as well.

The job is complete when it meets specs. Not when it's perfect - when it meets specs. When it's good enough.

. . . Let me put it this way: Would you wanted to be treated by a doctor who only knew 75 per cent of what was required of him? Of course not. . .[/I]

Oddly, I recently read an article contending that you didn't want a doctor from the bottom 10% or the top 10% of the class. Apparently the top 10% aren't known for their patient communication abilities. It's a single article with no citiations. Feel free to ignore. But I'd have trouble trusting a doctor that I didn't think was listening to me.

Also, being listed as in the top 25% of the class doesn't mean a doctor doesn't know 75% of what they need to know. As an example, when his father needed brain surgery, my brother-in-law (an anesthesiologist) looked for a surgeon who (A) did that kind of surgery regularly and (B) had a very good results rate. The doctor who had begun treatment didn't qualify by either criterion. The family switched hospitals to get a better doctor for that surgery. Results were good. At no time did anyone check college grades.

. . . I also wanted to say that there's a big difference between doing something/finishing something because it's good enough and doing a full job. That's my problem with good enough. Good enough suggests there is more to be done and a lack of effort.

No. Good enough says that the specs have been met. There is always more that could be done. If you paint a house assuming that it will be graded, and that you want 100%, you can always find something more to do. You can put on another coat of paint for fuller coverage. You can find a drip hidden up in the eaves that could be sanded down and repainted. Do not get caught in that infinite loop. You're a painter. Finish the job, get paid, and start the next job.

You'll starve if you do one job in the time that other painters do two. And word will get around that you take twice as long as everyone else. Customers who can't see the difference between two coats and three, and who would never think to get up on a ladder looking for runs in the paint under the eaves will definitely notice the extra cost of the third coat and the extra week that they had to dodge scaffolding.

[Wesley Clark]

I really don't understand your point. Are your claiming your classmates were better than you? Or are you just claiming that they were able to play the system better? Either it doesn't make you look good. I think part of it was good enough was enoigh for you. You could have been one of the 20%, but it didn't happen. It seems you have no regret. I don't want to say without offending you (most likely). All I have to say is in my major, I got all As. I got As and Bs in my nonmajor classes. Getting As sometimes met doing more work than some feel required and sometimes it meant being competetive, but not being a small fish in a big pond was also import to me.

In a general way, I can see some people being swayed by a big school. I'm not impressed by a C student from any state school as I'm EQUALLY not impressed by the C student from MIT/YALE/BROWN/HARVARD/ECT. The C tells me they probably didn't belong there.

Many of my classmates at the second school were better than me at academics. I went from being an A student to being a B/B- student with some Cs.

If those classmates had gone to MIT or CalTech, they would've been getting Cs instead of As.

I didn't want to be one of the 20%. The majority of my classmates were pre something. Most were pre-med but many were also pre-vet, pre-dental, pre-law, pre-pharmacy, pre-PhD. Evenso, I couldn't have been one of the 20%. Even if I had worked my ass off, hard work only goes so far. There is innate talent that matters too because there is a g factor of general intelligence, and there were people who had more of it than me. One of the guys who did get mostly As who was a classmate of mine was a total stoner who would party and fuck around all week, then study for a few hours before the test and get an A. I didn't have the innate talent to do that. I could do that at my first school, but not the second. If that guy who got As had gone to MIT, he would've gotten Cs with that kind of work ethic. But I never had any real desire to do grad work because I lack the self-discipline and do not think it would advance my career or personal life, so it didn't matter. Some people are cut out to get amazing grades and go on and do great things. Some people get amazing grades and fail miserably in life. The same happens to some people with terrible grades.

The C student from MIT would be an A student at a state school despite having the same grasp of the material. Either way, I never asked for anyone to find me impressive. But if a person uses undergraduate GPA as a metric to determine how successful a person is in life, or how competent they are at their job they are pretty out of touch and idealistic. GPA really doesn't matter.

[YaraMateo]

What you're clearly not understanding it that it really matters how the C grade is calculated before you judge if a student is fit to attend their school.

At my university and in my program (four-year nursing degree), all of the courses have a section in the course syllabus which has a predetermined grading system. In each course I take, you are graded on assignments/exams (as a percent grade), and each assignment is weighted into a final course mark. That final percentage converts to a set letter grade, which converts to a grade point value.

For example, in several of my courses, getting a final percent grade of 60-62% was a C-, which is 1.7 grade points. Similarly, a grade of 95-100% is a A+ (4.0). Each course in my program requires a C- to pass the course and use it as a prerequisite for the next semester's courses.

Now, I have a pretty good GPA (3.7), which means the percentage grade I got in most of my courses was 85-90%.

Each course has it's own grading system, so some courses are easier than others. A C- in one course requires a grade of 62%, while a C- in a harder course might require 57% and a C- in an easier course requires 67%.

In my program, at my university, I would agree with you that I would think that anyone who is intelligent enough to get into the program (which is very competitive), should be able to maintain a B GPA (approx. 75-79%).




HOWEVER, there are two universities in my city that offer a four-year RN degree program. My university uses the fixed percentage to GPA system. The other university's nursing program grades all of their classes on a curve. (Although other faculties at that university use the curve, percentages, or a combination - it varies between faculties/departments).

So at the other university, a fixed percentage of students will definitely fail, and a fixed percentage will get a C, a B, or an A.

You say "a C tell me they don't belong there." Maybe at my university I could kind of agree with you, but if I were going to the other university I would not. If a fixed percentage of the students will get a C or lower, you can't just say that those students shouldn't be there. If grades are on a curve and you lop off the bottom of the curve by kicking out all of the students who got a C, then the next semester the students who previously got B- and B marks will become the lowest part of the curve and will then get the Cs that are required to be given out by the curve.


I just don't understand this logic. You're not the only one using it. Someone has to be getting these As. What they doing? Sleeping with the professor? Black mailing them. Why are they able to get an A and you (all the yous who brought it up) not able to? I don't really want to see what school I want to, but it was a university and I got As and made the dean's list several times. I don't feel I did anything someone who smart enough and willing to put the effort could not do.

[YaraMateo]

Many of my classmates at the second school were better than me at academics. I went from being an A student to being a B/B- student with some Cs.

If those classmates had gone to MIT or CalTech, they would've been getting Cs instead of As.

I didn't want to be one of the 20%. The majority of my classmates were pre something. Most were pre-med but many were also pre-vet, pre-dental, pre-law, pre-pharmacy, pre-PhD. Evenso, I couldn't have been one of the 20%. Even if I had worked my ass off, hard work only goes so far. There is innate talent that matters too because there is a g factor of general intelligence, and there were people who had more of it than me. One of the guys who did get mostly As who was a classmate of mine was a total stoner who would party and fuck around all week, then study for a few hours before the test and get an A. I didn't have the innate talent to do that. I could do that at my first school, but not the second. If that guy who got As had gone to MIT, he would've gotten Cs with that kind of work ethic. But I never had any real desire to do grad work because I lack the self-discipline and do not think it would advance my career or personal life, so it didn't matter. Some people are cut out to get amazing grades and go on and do great things. Some people get amazing grades and fail miserably in life. The same happens to some people with terrible grades.

The C student from MIT would be an A student at a state school despite having the same grasp of the material. Either way, I never asked for anyone to find me impressive. But if a person uses undergraduate GPA as a metric to determine how successful a person is in life, or how competent they are at their job they are pretty out of touch and idealistic. GPA really doesn't matter.

We just seem to be going back to square one. Which is the C student says grades don't matter. Just like to use a noncareer/nongrade example, the ugly person says looks don't matter. The man with the little penis says size doesn't matter. The big fat lady says big is beautiful. I'm not saying that those things are false. I'd take it to men a lot more if a super model said looks don't matter, Ron Jeremy said size doesn't matter, and skinny minie said big girls are phat. I don't like cars. I think everyone knows that. If I said people don't really NEED cars that wouldn't be as effective as if some nascar winner said so. Proof is in the pudding. So to speak.

I'm kind of done with talking circles. I felt (and still feel) people on here felt their Cs were fine and dandy, until people other wise said so. There seems to be two opinions here. One is it's not done until it's right. The other is it's done when I feel like it's done. That's my opinion and I don't really feel it's going to change.

[billfish678]

I'm kind of done with talking circles. I felt (and still feel) people on here felt their Cs were fine and dandy, until people other wise said so. There seems to be two opinions here. One is it's not done until it's right. The other is it's done when I feel like it's done. That's my opinion and I don't really feel it's going to change.

I give it a C+ for effort or lack thereof.

Bunch of slacker posters these days...what ever happened to giving a 110 percent?

[YaraMateo]

I give it a C+ for effort or lack thereof.

Bunch of slacker posters these days...what ever happened to giving a 110 percent?

It doesn't count towards my GPA. I guess I drank the kool aid and manage to SOMEHOW get As! :eek::confused::dubious:

As someone who was on the dean's list, I do think grades matter.

[Shagnasty]

We just seem to be going back to square one. Which is the C student says grades don't matter. Just like to use a noncareer/nongrade example, the ugly person says looks don't matter. The man with the little penis says size doesn't matter. The big fat lady says big is beautiful. I'm not saying that those things are false. I'd take it to men a lot more if a super model said looks don't matter, Ron Jeremy said size doesn't matter, and skinny minie said big girls are phat. I don't like cars. I think everyone knows that. If I said people don't really NEED cars that wouldn't be as effective as if some nascar winner said so. Proof is in the pudding. So to speak.

I'm kind of done with talking circles. I felt (and still feel) people on here felt their Cs were fine and dandy, until people other wise said so. There seems to be two opinions here. One is it's not done until it's right. The other is it's done when I feel like it's done. That's my opinion and I don't really feel it's going to change.

Grade = D-. Your unusual use of cliches, sexual innuendo, and alternate 'street' spellings not to mention numerous spelling and grammar mistakes leave much to be desired in your work. I suggest you rewrite this post with style and substance more suitable to this forum and repost after diligent corrections.

Here is a small sample of mistakes.

1) It is 'supermodel', not 'super model' unless you are really proud of your plastic airplane.
2) Nascar is a proper noun and should be treated as such starting with a capital 'N'.
3) Where did Ron Jeremy say size doesn't matter? Using an adult film star as an example is questionable on its own and you need to give relevant citations for such claims. You used two separate small penis references twice in one paragraph as a matter of fact. I am not sure what that is supposed to mean.
4) Your second sentence is not a complete sentence.

I need to stop because the list of errors is going to be longer than your post. You get the idea. These basic English skills apply to almost all classes will knock you down way below a 'B' on their own for any college I studied in. Are you sure you are really about doing 'A' quality work no matter who your peers are or did you just come to believe that on your own?

[Max the Immortal]

I'm trying to think of a better analogy than painting. Maybe pole vault. The bar is set at a certain height. Your task is to vault over without touching the bar. If Bob vaults over with two inches of clearance, and then Greg vaults over with fourteen inches of clearance. Greg's performance is much more impressive than Bob's, but that doesn't mean that Bob didn't clear the bar.

If the bar is set a foot lower, and Ted and Dan and Steve clear it with three, five, and ten inches of clearance respectively, that doesn't show that any of them are better vaulters than Bob.

In an artificial environment, you can set the bar however high you like. If virtually everyone clears the bar, you can raise it to make it more challenging. This doesn't apply to real-world tasks like "design a bridge that won't collapse". If an engineer who was in the middle of the pack in school is more than sufficiently skilled to design an excellent bridge that won't collapse, it doesn't matter how many students scored better than him. The bridge will still be an excellent bridge.

[Waenara]

I just don't understand this logic. You're not the only one using it. Someone has to be getting these As. What they doing? Sleeping with the professor? Black mailing them. Why are they able to get an A and you (all the yous who brought it up) not able to? I don't really want to see what school I want to, but it was a university and I got As and made the dean's list several times.You still don't get it. Yes, someone will be getting the As. It could be due to their innate intelligence, or their willingness to study hard, or both. But someone will be getting the Cs. You can't judge that person as being unintelligent or lazy unless you have a little context - like whether their university marks on a curve, or how difficult it is to achieve higher than a C in a given course, how difficult the exams are, how smart the other classmates are, etc...

Theoretically, you could have a university that only takes students who scored perfectly on the SAT, all have an IQ over 140, were all valedictorians of their high schools, and are all overachievers who love to study 60 hours per week. But, if that university grades on a curve, a certain percentage of those students will be getting Cs for the first time in their life. That doesn't mean they don't deserve to be in university, it just means the type of school they're going to makes it insanely difficult to get good grades.


I don't feel I did anything someone who smart enough and willing to put the effort could not do.Well, maybe they could do it. Maybe they aren't as innately intelligent, but they can work harder than you. Or maybe they're smarter and can afford to slack off. But it matters what school you're going to and what program you're studying. Maybe you got by with being somewhat smart and doing a basic amount of work, but at a harder school or in a more competitive program, you would not have been so fortunate.

[Trepa Mayfield]

...and his policy was, "You have time to sleep when you die. No excuses."

Now that is a ridiculous statement. Even minor sleep deprivation, only a few hours' worth, can incur major losses in cognitive function and retention capabilities. By losing sleep to attain better grades, students are only hurting themselves in the long run, as they're less likely to actually understand the material fully and/or long-term.

[Zebra]

You know what? C is for cookie and that's good enough for me.

[cerberus]

Fixed grade scheme: score against a fixed rubric, no class quotas for grade frequencies. In this scheme, the meaning of a grade is relative performance per the fixed rubric.

A @ outstanding performance
B @ performance markedly above basic proficiency
C @ basic proficiency
D @ deficient performance
F @ clear failure to demonstrate minimal standards

Relative Grading: grade reflects performance as relative class rank.

In ye olden tymes, the C was the basic proficiency standard and A/B reflected superior performance. Under grade inflation, A is a combination of the old A and the old B, and B is the old C. Arguably, the new C may spam the old low C and the old D. In some cases, the new D spans some of the old F.