

Wager 101: Students Bet on Their Grades - grellas
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703824304575435494221610702.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLETopStories

======
RiderOfGiraffes
This was covered pretty extensively a week ago, although no one commented on
it then:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1599523> : USA Today

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1595995> : Hack Education

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1595526> : Philly.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1592416> : Huffington Post

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
ADDED IN EDIT : I wrote what follows when the parent comment had been down-
voted to 0. As I write this it's been re-up-voted to 1. Who knows where it
will go next - I watch with curiousity, but little understanding.

================

Bizarre - some people up-vote people who cross-reference items about the same
topic, and others down-vote. I guess it's my background in wiki technology,
always wanting to cross-reference and make things tidy, as opposed to the
forum mind-set that seems happy to tolerate sprawling, ephemeral discussions
rather than create something of lasting value.

For one, I hate wasting effort, and wasting other people's efforts. I thought
that cross-referencing tuff would help prevent duplication of effort, and
generally enrich the information, but clearly there are others who not only
disagree, but actively think it's of negative value.

<shrug> I don't understand that, but would be happy to read an explanation.

~~~
mattmillr
I appreciate the cross-referencing, as you provided four additional sources
for more information.

I'm guessing that in this case, however, your phrasing may have come across as
dismissive. Its not hard to imagine an overly-critical reader (someone who
isn't giving your motives the benefit of the doubt) seeing "This was covered
pretty extensively a week ago, although no one commented on it then" and
inferring "so why are you posting it again? Here I'll add a bunch of links to
prove I'm right."

I could be wrong.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes

      > ... your phrasing may have come across as dismissive ...
    

OK, noted, thanks. I'll bear that in mind.

------
jrockway
This brings new meaning to the expression "don't sell yourself short".

------
scrrr
From their FAQ: "You are not required to enter your academic login. You can
enter your courses into our system manually and you can verify your grades by
mailing us your official transcript."

I don't know how these transcripts look like in the US, but it seems like
here's a loophole for fraud.

~~~
qq66
Official transcripts are mailed by the school, not by the student, and are
somewhat difficult to spoof.

------
nickpinkston
Aren't we missing the point? Grades aren't what's important - learning is.
Until the school system gives people real motivation (i.e. not just saying "do
this, and we'll give you an A"), we're not going to make any progress in
getting more capable graduates / citizens.

