
“I Don’t Know, Probably Made My Usual C” - agronaut
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/12/12/fedex/
======
mikeash
It's interesting how much we (specifically Americans, but it may be a wider
phenomenon than that) really love success stories that follow from academic
mediocrity or failure. This is a perfect example: we really want Fred Smith to
have built his business on an idea that got a bad grade in school. A really
common example is the misconception that Albert Einstein did badly in school.

~~~
randomdata
I don't know how widespread this was, but when I was a youngster, people
started noticing that high achieving people tend to both do well in the
workplace and in school. Many took that visible correlation to mean that
school is what causes one to become a high achiever, and from there started
pushing the idea that you will be forever stuck working for minimum wage at
McDoanlds if you do not graduate from top academic programs.

While, from an adult perspective, it is logically silly and a violation of all
standard economic models, when impressionable children are hearing this from
respected adults on a frequent basis it is something that sticks in the mind.

Now the people I grew up with are adults, doing just fine for themselves, and
most are certainly not stuck forever working at McDonalds for minimum wage, no
matter how less than stellar their academic track record ended up being. I
feel these success stories are appealing to these people because it is a sort
of "I told you so" moment towards those who pushed the wrong message on them.

~~~
wahern
We also exaggerate the addictive potential of drugs. For the most part, only a
fraction of individuals, those particularly genetically prone to serious drug
addiction, will suffer. Moreover, environment is often a strong causative
factor in almost all forms of addiction.

Yet there are good reasons for exaggerating addiction potential to young
children. Taboos are a coarse but effective social mechanism, and maintaining
them often requires lying. Moreover, it's far easier and cheaper (especially
given paucity of our scientific knowledge) than attempting to identify those
particular children and adults most likely to become addicted.

Likewise, exaggerating the necessity for going to college is a cheap and easy
way to guide expectations and channel effort. It's no surprise that upper-
middle class children both graduate from college at higher rates _and_
generally have much better economic prospects--it's because of this very sort
of unquestioned enculturation. Same phenomenon for Asian groups and other
highly successful subgroups within society.

Reality will intrude soon enough. You don't need to tell a kid that Santa
Claus doesn't exist; he'll figure it out. The only difference between that and
other cultural lies is that when a kid figures out there's no Santa Claus he
doesn't have a life-long chip on his shoulder or believe that he uniquely
outsmarted the man. But when it comes to drugs, college, and now apparently
homeownership, people seem to think they've attained some sort of unique,
hard-won insight. And that cynicism is the only reasonable reaction.

I grew up super poor. Nobody ever told me to go to college. In fact, adults
ridiculed "book learning" and school counselors exaggerated the unavoidable
costs of college. But I did go to college--a private one with a generally
elite upper-middle-class and upper-class student body. Both cultures lied to
their children, but as an adult I can tell you which lie I'd have much
preferred. And I can't say I'd have preferred the cold, hard truth, either.
The truth is usually far more difficult, if not impossible, to articulate,
especially to young people. Indeed, the truth usually requires context that
just doesn't exist when you're talking about the distant future.

~~~
randomdata
Drugs are another good example. When we hear stores about people like Steve
Jobs and other success stories having used drugs, and even sometimes crediting
their success to drug use, we get a similar feelings toward those who told us
the wrong stories. I suppose there is something satisfying about showing them
that they were wrong.

------
lkrubner
I've read elsewhere that the professor had a rule that you should not write a
paper about anything illegal. That was because during the 1960s at least one
idiot wrote a paper like "I'm gonna start a marijuana farm and make
millions!!!!!!" So the professor had a rule, no papers about starting
marijuana farms, or any other illegal idea.

The FedEx that became successful in the 1970s was borderline illegal a few
years earlier. Regulations were reduced during the 1970s and then finally
phased out when President Jimmy Carter deregulated the transportation industry
in 1980. So Fred Smith's idea was in the same category as starting a marijuana
farm. Both ideas faced hostile governmental overview. This is indirectly
acknowledged in the quote from Esquire:

"His skeptical professor didn’t think such a business had a ghost of a chance,
considering the airline industry’s intense competition and heavy regulation."

Right, in the 1960s the idea would have been very difficult, but regulations
changed a during the 1970s and largely ended in 1980. FedEx's big success in
the 1970s and 1980s was made possible thanks to the change in regulations.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
> made possible thanks to the change in regulations.

And a USPS that was notorious for losing mail at the time.

~~~
CodeWriter23
Still notorious.

------
teraflop
Tangentially relevant: this HN thread from 2015 has some fascinating comments
about the early days of FedEx, from one of its first employees.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9281466](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9281466)

------
mistercow
Seems to me that if someone is used to getting Cs, and they don't remember
what great they made on a term paper, it's a pretty good bet that they got a
C.

------
lanius
Similarly, Maya Lin's design for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial only earned a B
in her architecture class at Yale.

[https://www.biography.com/news/maya-lin-vietnam-veterans-
mem...](https://www.biography.com/news/maya-lin-vietnam-veterans-memorial)

~~~
zeveb
Frankly, though, I think it's not that great. Sure, it has a lot of emotional
resonance, but that's because the Vietnam War has lots of emotional resonance.
Seen solely as a memorial, it's cold & impersonal. That kinda works, given
Vietnam's role as the first U.S. victory[0] the country felt badly about.

[0] Yes, the U.S. won: North & South Vietnam signed the Paris Peace Accords in
1973, in which North Vietnam agreed that the South Vietnamese people would be
allowed to determine their own political future. It was only in 1974 & 1975,
after Nixon's resignation, that North Vietnam again invaded South Vietnam,
breaking the treaty.

------
jandrese
I have to wonder if at some point an Esquire fact checker called up his
professor and asked if he kept individual grades in ancient student records.
My guess is that it has been too many years now and all records are lost.

~~~
scott00
He graduated in 1966, so it's been at least 51 years now. There's a pretty
good chance the professor is dead, and a near-certainty he's retired. So I
would say close to no chance at this point. Back when Esquire did the story in
1978, however, it had only been 12-15 years. It's within the realm of
possibility the grade book would have been findable at that time.

------
mar77i
I expected this article to be at least tangential to C programming. Glad to C
otherwise, I'm almost grateful. I know C pretty well, though, and would miss
or reinvent it if it wouldn't exist.

~~~
make3
Maybe something else would have taken it's place and you would speculate about
wanting to reinvent that instead if it didn't exist

