The pre-med from hell??

[Caracal]

I have no idea where I was on a ranked list. Wherever it was, it was nowhere near the top tier.

The middling sort (including me) got our Ph.D.'s; the wicked smart kids became software engineers and then senior executives at Microsoft. Or toured as professional musicians. Or started up law firms.

Even at the time, I knew that I was clever but not brilliant, in the ways that some of my classmates were (and are) brilliant. Somebody had to get the prize, but there was general recognition that there were lots of different scales by which excellence could be evaluated, and not all of them were GPA.

I remember some years back, a university with very high cutoffs studied the data and determined that   above 90% or so, there was very little correlation between first year success and incoming average. All of the students who got in were academically capable, so how well they did depended more on other factors.  A 98% average isn't guaranteed to be any better than, or even as good as, a 95% average. (And even if it doesn't include Home Ec.)

That would  make sense. At a certain point, you're measuring meaningless things, or the wrong things. A student who got a couple of A-S might have taken more difficult classes than the student who got all As. Or maybe they put more time into some classes they like more.

[fishbrains]

Fishbrains, was this young woman perhaps a year or so older than the average classmate was?

Dunno. My main interaction with her was in an Advanced Biology class where we two were partners with the school quarterback while we dissected a cat (he was a good guy as well, but with the concussions starting to take effect). I had gym class before biology so I wasn't feeling pretty when I went in. And after the biology class, I smelled like teen-boy sweat and formaldehyde for the rest of the day. In short, she didn't exactly get to work with the A-team there.

Anyway, we were supposed to memorize the muscles on the poor, cut-up cat. She looked at the book, looked down at Homeslice there on the table, and she knew the muscles. Boom. Just like that. Me and the quarterback, not so much--a lot of blank staring on our part. She was probably the first person I'd met at that point who I had to admit was just in a different and superior intellectual zone that I couldn't touch--something way, way beyond just someone knowing some things I didn't know (like the teachers, for example).

I can still smell that f*cking cat. It's hard to believe that was 35+ years ago.   

[Hegemony]

I knew someone like that, though it was in college rather than in high school. She could learn anything instantly, she retained all of it, and then she had deep ideas about it. Most recently she won one of those MacArthur "Genius" grants. Of course I'm jealous, but I can't say it was undeserved.

[marshwiggle]

I have no idea where I was on a ranked list. Wherever it was, it was nowhere near the top tier.

The middling sort (including me) got our Ph.D.'s; the wicked smart kids became software engineers and then senior executives at Microsoft. Or toured as professional musicians. Or started up law firms.

Even at the time, I knew that I was clever but not brilliant, in the ways that some of my classmates were (and are) brilliant. Somebody had to get the prize, but there was general recognition that there were lots of different scales by which excellence could be evaluated, and not all of them were GPA.

I remember some years back, a university with very high cutoffs studied the data and determined that   above 90% or so, there was very little correlation between first year success and incoming average. All of the students who got in were academically capable, so how well they did depended more on other factors.  A 98% average isn't guaranteed to be any better than, or even as good as, a 95% average. (And even if it doesn't include Home Ec.)

That would  make sense. At a certain point, you're measuring meaningless things, or the wrong things. A student who got a couple of A-S might have taken more difficult classes than the student who got all As. Or maybe they put more time into some classes they like more.

I also seem to recall Angela Duckworth (the researcher behind "grit") re-interpreting her earlier results about grit being the most important thing in West Point cadets. Originally she found that grit was the most important indicator of success, but later she pointed out that the application process had already selected for high intelligence, etc. so  grit was important all else being equal. That's a vital distinction.

[Caracal]

I have no idea where I was on a ranked list. Wherever it was, it was nowhere near the top tier.

The middling sort (including me) got our Ph.D.'s; the wicked smart kids became software engineers and then senior executives at Microsoft. Or toured as professional musicians. Or started up law firms.

Even at the time, I knew that I was clever but not brilliant, in the ways that some of my classmates were (and are) brilliant. Somebody had to get the prize, but there was general recognition that there were lots of different scales by which excellence could be evaluated, and not all of them were GPA.

I remember some years back, a university with very high cutoffs studied the data and determined that   above 90% or so, there was very little correlation between first year success and incoming average. All of the students who got in were academically capable, so how well they did depended more on other factors.  A 98% average isn't guaranteed to be any better than, or even as good as, a 95% average. (And even if it doesn't include Home Ec.)

That would  make sense. At a certain point, you're measuring meaningless things, or the wrong things. A student who got a couple of A-S might have taken more difficult classes than the student who got all As. Or maybe they put more time into some classes they like more.

I also seem to recall Angela Duckworth (the researcher behind "grit") re-interpreting her earlier results about grit being the most important thing in West Point cadets. Originally she found that grit was the most important indicator of success, but later she pointed out that the application process had already selected for high intelligence, etc. so  grit was important all else being equal. That's a vital distinction.

It seems like something that might work well in a west point context where students all have to deal with the internal pressures, but are also all getting full scholarships and live in an environment where exposure to external pressures is lessened. I assume you can't work off campus while you're at West Point, for example.

In the rest of the world these things aren't so clear cut. I didn't need a lot of grit to do well in college. I was taking courses on things that I was interested in, I wasn't responsible for anyone but myself, and I didn't have any financial concerns. I had a couple off campus and on campus jobs during college but they were just for a little spare spending money and I was never working more than five hours a week.

On the other hand I have a lot of students who work full time jobs and have lots of family responsibilities. Significantly more grit needed if you're going to do well in college.

[Stockmann]

In the rest of the world these things aren't so clear cut. I didn't need a lot of grit to do well in college. I was taking courses on things that I was interested in, I wasn't responsible for anyone but myself, and I didn't have any financial concerns. I had a couple off campus and on campus jobs during college but they were just for a little spare spending money and I was never working more than five hours a week.

On the other hand I have a lot of students who work full time jobs and have lots of family responsibilities. Significantly more grit needed if you're going to do well in college.

Yes, but conversely, I had a couple of students both of whom had no responsibilities other than their educations, no financial worries, etc. One of them was particularly bright but, knowing he had his life more or less sorted because of family connections, was very unmotivated, and barely graduated despite all his advantages. I'm not sure what happened to the other one, but he was well on track to flunking out. I've also known of students flunking out essentially due to terminal cluelessness.

On the other hand, I had one student who was rarely in my class because she was working (and I know for a fact she really was working), and went to earn high grades in spite of her obvious financial difficulties. Another student I knew is a disabled mother, and was still managing passing grades despite obvious challenges. So while you had relatively advantageous circumstances, you put the work in and not everyone in such circumstances does, and there are students who, precisely because of tough  circumstances, develop the grit and time management skills that allow them to hang on. I'm not saying some don't fluorish because of advantageous circumstances, or do badly because of bad circumstances / "life happens" situations, but my point is grit is probably pretty crucial not just at West Point.

[marshwiggle]

I'm not saying some don't fluorish because of advantageous circumstances, or do badly because of bad circumstances / "life happens" situations, but my point is grit is probably pretty crucial not just at West Point.

My purpose in mentioning grit in  the first place was that placing a lot of importance of very small differences in GPA isn't terribly useful; having such high stakes (like scholarships) for the person with the highest GPA is probably no more useful statistically than drawing at random from the top 5 in the class or something like that. And the gaming of the system generated by those high stakes is an unfortunate, but totally predictable, outcome.