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?
I think he should leave the pressure to overachieve to the parents. By that logic, anything less than 100% isn’t good enough.
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’.
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?
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.
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
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.
I give this analogy a C- a little more thought next time Prof.
Stupid analogy - the C student gets a degree. That painter gets fired.
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.
I return all “C” papers and exams to students. I won’t take them.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
A loser would be getting Ds and Fs.
Also,
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.
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.