I'm in university now, and I hate seeing the people around me more concerned about their marks than how much they are learning. For one thing, it's been shown that people enjoy things more - and do better - when they are motivated by an internal desire instead (say, curiosity or a desire for education) of an external reward (marks).
I am in the fortunate situation that I don't have to prove myself to anyone [1] (although I try to keep my options open for grad school), so I can focus on learning instead of pretending to. That isn't to say that everyone who gets straight A's is pretending; but in my experience someone who's main motivation is to maximize their marks does so at the expense of their education. In theory the two are perfectly correlated, but in practice they aren't.
[1] I don't mean to say that I don't have a psychological need to prove myself to others and others do, but that I don't have an immediate need to keep high marks. Between scholarships, marks, internships, etc. most people I know need to stress over marks for one reason or another.
I find grades are only a cursory indicator of intellectual worth. For sure, those who achieved A's are definitely hard-workers and have most probably looked into certain subjects at more depth and breadth (which they'll hopefully remember lest the whole educational experience seems totally worthless to me).
I achieved A's in university. But then I know a guy who did poorly in comparison. Whereas I found what the markers expected of me he found what he wanted to know and explored what he wanted to explore, often deviating with standard practice to the detriment of his grades.
Although we are both as competent as each other his university edification seemed far more personally worthwhile; I learnt for the markers and industry he learnt to increase his understanding and capability in areas sometimes not formally rewarded (with marks).
I'm sure you can do both: accept the curriculum and learn it for your own benefit. I'm sure this is more or less everyone's ideal. But it seems a lot of people loose focus on their personal edification and concentrate on pleasing their markers.
For an example, I'm sure there are courses on XML. You could spend your time becoming adroit in your Schema definition et al or you could spend your time pondering about the general subject in more depth and even rejecting the conventional wisdom. I'd argue the latter course of action is quite valid; but you won't get any marks for it.
"I too was obsessed with getting straight A's in college (undergraduate)."
Makes me wonder about the other casualty besides friends & time -- namely experimentation at the time you should be exploring fields of interest. The drive to get straight A's could prevent students from taking "risky" courses, ones that could ruin that perfect GPA. Pre-meds/law that take Physics for Poets instead of Physics for aspiring Physicists. Going for the grades might lead you to avoid interesting courses that are far from your perceived strengths, or jumping into a cool grad-level course where you don't quite meet the prerequisites.
Exactly. This person is comparing the straight-A's lifestyle to doing nothing, and ignoring the opportunity cost they paid. What else could they have learned or done during that time?
Hardly. And I'm sure you're not the type I'm referring to, one who throws an equal amount of energy into everything and therefore focuses on nothing. They are looking for the grade rather than mastery, insight, or comprehension.
I actually am the type, sort of. Which is why I take exception to the generalizations you're making.
I think it's entirely plausible that a person goes through college taking classes--including difficult ones--that they're interested in and getting good grades in all of them. I also think it's not impossible to have mastery or insight or comprehension (or all three) in spite of breadth of study. I base these beliefs on my own experience...
Skimping on sleep in undergrad and not regretting it, chalking it up as "practice" for life sleeping in a cube? That doesn't sound very fun. I think there's a saying. . . something like "A students end up working for C students."
I've always wondered where that leaves B students. I have no ideas how many A's I earned, exactly, but I do recall my GPA to a vague notion of a range between 3 decimal places.
Many of you are missing the point. (neilc has it right) I didn't want to achieve straight A's for the sake of achieving straight A's. It is not like I told anyone (or needed to prove myself to anyone else). I did it because that was the mark of achieving mastery in the course (now you may disagree with that). Most of the poeple I knew that claimed to be learning a lot outside of the class curriculum and ended up with C's actually didn't learn very much because they spent more time slacking off than trying to learn.
As far as spending time to get A's instead of exploring, I didn't mention it but besides the two internships I also participated in a study aboard at the University of Manchester (England) and traveled all over Europe.
People see this issue as black and white, but trying to get A's does not preclude you from doing other things. You just have to be willing to put in the time to get A's (ie, learning the subject matter) PLUS do other things. Most people don't have the work ethic.
> People see this issue as black and white, but trying to get A's does not preclude you from doing other things.
I believe that it does. A small number of people, in general, make good use of the extra time afforded by slacking on grades, but we here on yc news probably aren't talking about the average person.
People I know who got straight A's were very one-minded. The huge number of clubs that they were in fools no one. Straight A's is almost a guarantee that the person has expertise in nothing else substantial, from what I've seen.
Agreed. I was fairly entrepreneurial in College (at the expense of my grades) and I'm really glad of it. I wish I'd traveled more and done a bit more on the intramural front, but am damn glad I didn't invest the time necessary to get straight As.
If you're actually using that extra time to pursue entrepreneurial activities and you're sure you don't want to attend grad school, then you're probably right. For the vast majority of students, though, I don't think that is the case: much of the time saved by not doing well in class is just squandered doing the typical things college students do. If you're willing to put in the effort, you should have enough time to get As and still do lots of worthwhile extracurricular things (I certainly did, in any case). Also, having good college marks (plus good letters of recommendation from profs) is always a useful backup in case you ever decide you want to go to grad school in the future.
Well, perhaps for the "typical" student, sure -- but by most metrics I would say the YC news audience is atypical. If you have a small amount of natural ability coupled with a work ethic, it is not a matter of getting As or having "something of a social life" -- you can have both.
I sucked in almost all my classes for the time I went to uni. A part of me really started believing that I was simply dumb at all those subjects I was doing bad in. In last six months since I took a leave, I have enjoyed learning stuff on my own that I can recall being taught in classes I hated.
Now it is almost like when I do go back to school someday, I will be better prepared having self-studied what is being taught in class. A whole new reason to leave school: so you can better prepare yourself for it=)
The point of college is more babysitting, except this time you pay for it (in grade school, taxes paid for it).
If this gets you in debt, you then have to work it off by being supervised in yet another babysitting situation/nanny-state position, working for The Man.
Any benefits you manage to get out of it are incidental.
I am in the fortunate situation that I don't have to prove myself to anyone [1] (although I try to keep my options open for grad school), so I can focus on learning instead of pretending to. That isn't to say that everyone who gets straight A's is pretending; but in my experience someone who's main motivation is to maximize their marks does so at the expense of their education. In theory the two are perfectly correlated, but in practice they aren't.
[1] I don't mean to say that I don't have a psychological need to prove myself to others and others do, but that I don't have an immediate need to keep high marks. Between scholarships, marks, internships, etc. most people I know need to stress over marks for one reason or another.