Disagree. In many cases academia DOES actively punish failure, through negative feedback mechanisms involving grades, comments on papers/essays and the like that subjugate "out-of-the-box-thinking" in favor of a certain theme or buzzword a professor wants to hear, what his or her political or economic viewpoint is, etc.
I'm not saying this is inherently good or bad either. If you're a surgeon or an airline pilot, your room for experimentation & outside the box thinking is slim to nil. But actively discouraging an aspiring hacker, developer, entrepreneur etc. from experimentation (I.E. a high rate of failure before success) is a surefire way to diffuse the creative process, in my mind.
Disagree. In many cases academia DOES actively punish failure, through negative feedback mechanisms involving grades, comments on papers/essays and the like that subjugate "out-of-the-box-thinking" in favor of a certain theme or buzzword a professor wants to hear, what his or her political or economic viewpoint is, etc.
I think you're conflating two things here: negative feedback and biased evaluation. Two very different things.
Regarding negative feedback -- it's not failure, it's feedback. And that's what I mean by the immaturity aspect. When I was a kid, I'd cry when I lost at chess. As I got older I usually learned more from my losses than my wins. They were no longer just failures, it was a chance to improve. Throughout school I felt the same way. Comments on papers/essays and grades I used to make myself better. I appreciated them.
The biased evaluation isn't unique to college. In fact its a pretty major part of life in general. You're going to have to deal with it in businss, dealing with VCs, dealing with spouses, banks, employees, etc... If you can figure out a way to remove it, I'd love to see it.
Regarding out of the box thinking, I generally found it well received. Especially in CS. But I guess YMMV.
A high college GPA sends me a very clear message: this candidate has a proven ability to identify what dozens of different professors and TAs wanted, and deliver it.
When I was 19, I didn't see it as a valuable skill, I just thought it was obnoxious bullshit. Today, I see it as so valuable that when faced with a pile of potential candidates, nearly everybody who graduated magna or summa gets at least a phone interview.
Disagree. In many cases academia DOES actively punish failure, through negative feedback mechanisms involving grades, comments on papers/essays and the like that subjugate "out-of-the-box-thinking" in favor of a certain theme or buzzword a professor wants to hear, what his or her political or economic viewpoint is, etc.
I'm not saying this is inherently good or bad either. If you're a surgeon or an airline pilot, your room for experimentation & outside the box thinking is slim to nil. But actively discouraging an aspiring hacker, developer, entrepreneur etc. from experimentation (I.E. a high rate of failure before success) is a surefire way to diffuse the creative process, in my mind.