Are physicists looked down upon if

[JasonRox]

Well said.

I agree too.

But when that happens, I tell them I'm busy. BYE!

 

[Quaoar]

It seems like as long as you have a 3.0, your resume probably won't get tossed into the trash immediately. Even though there may not be a big difference between a 2.9 GPA and a 3.0 GPA ability-wise, many employers will see that 2 and eliminate you on the spot. Anything less than 2 is almost as bad as not going to college at all.

Of course, GPA will matter very little 5 years down the road when you have a good amount of work experience behind you. Other things like undergraduate research can help make up for a sub-par GPA.

I'll have to agree with chroot here and say that I don't really like it when people cling to one of the extremes and say that grades are everything or that grades are nothing. Obviously, if someone is doing well in physics after graduating with a poor GPA, they have other qualities that make people look past the low numbers.

I'm not at all comfortable with GPA elitism. Getting a good GPA is certainly an accomplishment, but it is not the only thing that can allow you to become a successful scientist. I know quite a few people who are happy to brag right to your face about their high GPA and readily mock those who didn't earn good grades. I don't know if it's a defense mechanism or pure malice, but its certainly something that has to stop.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't know if it's a defense mechanism or pure malice, but its certainly something that has to stop.

Why? It's called I work hard, and I get good grades. If you don't, then you are not working hard enough. Why should I care if it hurts your feelings?

Welcome to the real world, where people don't give a damn about excuses because you did not do your best. Either do your best and be proud or keep it shut (Don't take this as a personal attack Quaoar, I am just speaking out loud here to make a point, and don't mean it as an attack on you ).

That being said, I also recognize that after school grades won't matter, but right now, he is in school so everyone spare me the BS about grades won't be important. Yeah, later on in life they wont, but for now THEY DO.

Chroot, when your right, your right. I do think they are both lazy and stupid. And more importantly, so will the real world. How many admissions offices and companies are on the edge of their seat to see an applicant with a 2.5GPA? I sure as hell would not want to work or attend at that dump.

 

[^_^physicist]

Every university is different. That is the key. Each school has a slightly different method of drilling knowledge into you, and each student has to reach an understanding of this material in a different way. A college such as Evergreen State has the students only take 1 integrated class for an entire term worth between 12-18 credits a piece. The students do not get grades from this course; instead they get an evalutation at the end of the term. And yet Evergreen State has received many high regards from employers and national scales.

Let me repeat that: There are no grades at this school and employers that hire from this pool of students are quite happy with the training their workers have recieved. Kind of blows the whole "Grades are everything" out of the water.

How about the school I am very fond of: Reed College. This School gives grades to students; however, the students must go through a long and formal process to see the grades. Instead the students receive a detailed evalutation at the end of the term. And Reed is one of the best schools in the US. Again grades are dumbed down by the school.

See and that's the thing, grades are not what really matters: what matters is accountiblity on the part of the student to know the material. If an employer is going to just throw your resume in the trash because you had a 2.9 GPA and you really wanted that job, I would be calling them up and pestering them until you had an interview set up. Grades are an artifical doorway into having people look at you; however, your accountiblity is really what folks look for, and that what they are looking for in a resume.

Of course I could be wrong, but consitering this is what had been taught to me by an interview coach, it can't be that far gone.

 

[Quaoar]

Chroot, when your right, your right. I do think they are both lazy and stupid. And more importantly, so will the real world. How many admissions offices and companies are on the edge of their seat to see an applicant with a 2.5GPA? I sure as hell would not want to work or attend at that dump.

This really depends on circumstances. I had a friend in college who had a GPA around 2.8. He chose to focus on the research he did with a professor while he was in college, instead of focusing on classwork. Now he's on his way to becoming a successful researcher because of that experience. When GPA is all you've got, you have to make it look good. A mid 2's GPA with nothing else is not going to help very much when looking for a job. If that low GPA is a result of shifting priorities to meet research demands, that's a different story.

The main point is that its not fair to call people "stupid" without considering the full spectrum of possibility. My opinion is that the reason for low GPAs as an undergraduate are mostly due to misplaced priorities. I would wager that the first 2 years of physics are accessible to anyone who makes a substantial effort. Entering junior year, intelligence can start to be a barrier for some people, but even then hard work usually triumphs.

 

[Cyrus]

If he does research, good for him. That is still no excuse for the low GPA. If he wants to do research, cut down on the classes so he can pass them. It is perfectly fair for me to call them stupid, because having too much on your plate and doing bad is...stupid.

 

[Quaoar]

If he does research, good for him. That is still no excuse for the low GPA. If he wants to do research, cut down on the classes so he can pass them. It is perfectly fair for me to call them stupid, because having too much on your plate and doing bad is...stupid.

Reducing class load is certainly one way to improve your GPA. However, that assumes that he wanted a good GPA. Perhaps he wanted to learn about a broad range of topics and didn't want to cut back on his class load. Perhaps his grade in a QM course he was required to take wasn't very high, but maybe he took a condensed matter elective that interested him and was related to his research. Calling him "stupid" is a little extreme considering you don't know the guy or his circumstances.

 

[CPL.Luke]

a 2.8 is well within the passing range. And if he does good research that means that he not only knows the material, but he knows the material above and beyond the level that most of the people who get A's do. Grad school's and employers will recognize this. I've had a number of friends in high school who were very smart but had gpa's in the 2's, these people understood the material and got very high scores on the ap tests and the SAT's, they also were working outside of school on various extra curriculars or they were working for money. Admissions boards recognized the intelligence of these people and they were accepted into very good schools.

personally in high school I had a 1. something and was in the bottom 2% in a class of 400. I dropped out of school and got a GED, because I knew all the material I scored in the top 3%, I went to a community college for a semester and then waived my GED and midterm report in front of the admissions committee at UMASS and was accepted. (granted my grades now are a lot better than they were in high school, somewhere in the 3's)

So the grades don't really matter if your smart and you have other things going for you, and your willing to kick down the doors of admissions committee's and potential employers. But otherwise they do matter, and you need a minimum of a 3.0

 

[chroot]

^_^physicist,

If the school does not give grades, it can mean only one thing: they kick out the students who don't meet their expectations. Prospective employers know students from those schools are well-prepared simply because they survived to graduation. I also don't really see the distinction betwen "evaluations" and grades. Sure, evaluations are much more meaningful, take much more time to compile, and probably help the student more than a "B" slapped on their entire semester's worth of work -- but evaluations and grades still serve the exact same purpose. Schools must evaluate their students in some fashion -- they cannot just graduate everyone who walks in.

So, everyone seems to be converging on the same conclusion here:

If you're a one-in-a-million genius, are the professor's son, or have other "things going for you," grades may not be all that important. To everyone else -- those who must fight for admission, compete for employment, and pay their own bills -- grades are very important. They're not a matter of life and death, though, and you can usually find a way to fix your old mistakes.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

a 2.8 is well within the passing range. And if he does good research that means that he not only knows the material, but he knows the material above and beyond the level that most of the people who get A's do. Grad school's and employers will recognize this. I've had a number of friends in high school who were very smart but had gpa's in the 2's, these people understood the material and got very high scores on the ap tests and the SAT's, they also were working outside of school on various extra curriculars or they were working for money. Admissions boards recognized the intelligence of these people and they were accepted into very good schools.

personally in high school I had a 1. something and was in the bottom 2% in a class of 400. I dropped out of school and got a GED, because I knew all the material I scored in the top 3%, I went to a community college for a semester and then waived my GED and midterm report in front of the admissions committee at UMASS and was accepted. (granted my grades now are a lot better than they were in high school, somewhere in the 3's)

So the grades don't really matter if your smart and you have other things going for you, and your willing to kick down the doors of admissions committee's and potential employers. But otherwise they do matter, and you need a minimum of a 3.0

Sighhhhhhhhhhhh...again. Why are you comparing high school GPA to that of college?...

 

[Cyrus]

Reducing class load is certainly one way to improve your GPA. However, that assumes that he wanted a good GPA. Perhaps he wanted to learn about a broad range of topics and didn't want to cut back on his class load. Perhaps his grade in a QM course he was required to take wasn't very high, but maybe he took a condensed matter elective that interested him and was related to his research. Calling him "stupid" is a little extreme considering you don't know the guy or his circumstances.

If he is capable of doing work above and beyond his course material while doing research, then there is no excuse for him to get low grades.

 

[Quaoar]

If he is capable of doing work above and beyond his course material while doing research, then there is no excuse for him to get low grades.

The "excuse" is that he wasn't terribly interested in improving his GPA, he figures that most people will look beyond the numbers and consider his ample research experience when they consider him for employment/research opportunities. I think that people like you are in the minority in expecting every great scientist to have a great GPA.

 

[Cyrus]

I think that people like you are in the minority in expecting every great scientist to have a great GPA.

I find that hard to believe. And, we are not talking about 'great scientists', like waren said, we are talking about your average college graduate. Not someone who is a natural genius.

It's your life, you can do whatever you want. But when you apply for a job with a 2.8 and they laugh at your face, its not my problem.

A 2.8 won't get you too far where I work, and that's a fact. People are going to frown upon it. From what it sounds, Bekerman works at a similar place and look what he said about low GPAs.

In conclusion, low GPAs are NOT good, they are nothing to be proud of, and there is NO EXCUSE for having one.

 

[Quaoar]

I find that hard to believe. And, we are not talking about 'great scientists', like waren said, we are talking about your average college graduate. Not someone who is a natural genius.

It's your life, you can do whatever you want. But when you apply for a job with a 2.8 and they laugh at your face, its not my problem.

A 2.8 won't get you too far where I work, and that's a fact. People are going to frown upon it. From what it sounds, Bekerman works at a similar place and look what he said about low GPAs.

In conclusion, low GPAs are NOT good, they are nothing to be proud of, and there is NO EXCUSE for having one.

Well, I don't know where you work, but I can guarantee you that most companies are more pragmatic when it comes to hiring people, and while admittedly a GPA below 3.0 can get you removed from consideration at certain places, there are still plenty of organizations that will look at the overall picture.

Having a low GPA isn't something to be "proud" of, but it's not the end all be all and there are plenty of good excuses. I think you're wrong to apply the standards that might exist at wherever you work to the entirety of professional and academic pursuits.

 

[chroot]

The "excuse" is that he wasn't terribly interested in improving his GPA, he figures that most people will look beyond the numbers and consider his ample research experience when they consider him for employment/research opportunities. I think that people like you are in the minority in expecting every great scientist to have a great GPA.

While I don't agree with most of cyrus' opinions on this topic, I do agree with him on this: anyone who decides to take on undergraduate research, and let his grades slide, is mixing up his priorities. Undergraduate research is relatively unimportant, and many graduate schools have policies such that they cannot accept you if you didn't have at least a 3.0, even if ten professors are singing your praises. Grades matter more than undergraduate research.

And Quaoar, the truth is that most technical companies are not likely to hire a recent graduate with a GPA less than 3.0. (I can't really speak much about non-technical professions, since I have no experience in them.) That's not to say that a student with a 2.5 cannot find a less-demanding job elsewhere, and eventually move up into the same position, but the deck has been stacked somewhat against him. He will likely have to do more grunt work to get to the same professional position.

The problem is that there are just so many students out there with GPAs in the high threes, and unless a company is really hurting for applicants, they're going to prefer those. Good companies -- the Fortune 500 companies that treat their employees well -- have no dearth of very qualified applicants. I'm an integrated circuit designer, and I can certainly attest to this. We hire most of our college grads from prestigious schools, and most of them have stellar grades. We just have no reason to consider the candidates with poor grades. We're trying to hire people to make chips, and make them well, and make a profit. We're not really in the business of trying to find the "genius with low GPA" needles in the haystack.

I'd also like to point out that the people who really make the hiring decisions -- the managers who actually have the open reqs -- are not the people who sift through hundreds of resumes, looking for good candidates. Generally, that's the domain of the human resources people. The managers call up the HR people and say, "Hey, send me four or five resumes you think fit my req," and then they generally hire someone from that small pool. Even if you have incredible undergraduate research experience that would impress the hell out of the manager, you may not impress the HR person, and they make the first cut.

If you have a lot of other items on your post-graduation resume, you might be able to get away with leaving a poor GPA off your resume altogether. Some interviewers won't even notice, if there are enough other items on it to stimulate discussion and interest.

Again, however, most people are not "great scientists." Most people who do poorly in school do not excel in undergraduate research. Most people who do poorly in school do not have resumes full of interesting, disciplined work experience. We can argue extremes all day long ("Einstein got some bad grades!") but the normal middle-class graduate is going to be somewhat hindered by a poor GPA, and it's silly to claim otherwise.

- Warren

 

[Quaoar]

My argument was that you need other things going for you if you have a low GPA to have success. True, many doors close for you if you choose to sacrifice GPA for experience, but some open up as well. The quantity that open and close really depends on your topic of interest.

 

[^_^physicist]

but evaluations and grades still serve the exact same purpose. Schools must evaluate their students in some fashion -- they cannot just graduate everyone who walks in.

So, everyone seems to be converging on the same conclusion here:

If you're a one-in-a-million genius, are the professor's son, or have other "things going for you," grades may not be all that important. To everyone else -- those who must fight for admission, compete for employment, and pay their own bills -- grades are very important. They're not a matter of life and death, though, and you can usually find a way to fix your old mistakes.

- Warren

I think we are differing slightly. From what I can tell, and I may be entirely off base, is that you feel one must work there way "up" through their undergraduate school. That one must prove to the school that they are capible for the next level of education. I on the other hand, follow from the argument that you start on the "top," that the school should recognize that you as as student will understand this, maybe not now, but once we drill it you will understand it, and that if you can't you are going to be marked down. So in my view, and in the view of the schools that give "evaluations" more as a means of seeing if the student can hold to his/her word that he/she is accountible for engaging the material presented.

Yours, from what I am getting, is a means of pure evaluation on what has taken place in a particular instance, while mine is a check-point that students must reach.
-------------

As for your most recent post, per the posting of this post, I would just like to state that their is always an exception to being granted enterance into things.

 

[mathwonk]

This is a very interesting and wide ranging discussion. What I wish to emphasize is that jobs and success follow understanding rather than grades, and grades do not always reflect understanding.

thus one should ask not whether ones gpa is satisfactory, but whether one is actually learning what is required. I.e. the OP's original question is to me not the most crucial one.

It is quite possible to have a high gpa and still not know enough to land a good job or hold it. On then other hand a low gpa should cause one to ask whether he is learning the necessary material.

of course a low gpa may, in a fair environment, actually reflect lack of understanding. so one should ask how to actually learn more, and also how to earn good enough grades so that the learning one has is visible to prospective employers.

I suggest identifying people who are geting better grades than one is oneself and observing how their behavior differs from ones own. As a student I noticed that one kid who got all A's also spent a heck of a lot more time in the library than I did.

A study at berkeley done some decades ago showed that students who were actually failing out of calculus could be changed into honors students by merely meeting together in the evenings, studying together, helping each other, and working harder problems.

this suggests forminga study group of serious students, trying the harder problems, and benefiting from each others insights. I used to study this way with at least one other stduent at about my own ability level. this also kept us going longer, since we enjoyed each others company.

 

[chroot]

It is quite possible to have a high gpa and still not know enough to land a good job or hold it. On then other hand a low gpa should cause one to ask whether he is learning the necessary material.

of course a low gpa may, in a fair environment, actually reflect lack of understanding. so one should ask how to actually learn more, and also how to earn good enough grades so that the learning one has is visible to prospective employers.

I think you and I are in agreement after all. Certainly, there are a few outlying people who have fantastic grades but have no idea what they learned, and a few outlying people who have horrible grades but understand the material better than their professors.

The middle 95% (or is it 99%?), on the other hand, have a GPA and an understanding that roughly correlate, and this is why people use it as at least a rough indicator of a students' overall ability. No one has ever been penalized for having too high a GPA, so students should certainly attempt to maintain a high GPA. If one could graduate with only a high GPA or only a deep understanding, then, certainly, one should pick the deep understanding. The good news is that there's no such dichotomy here, and a student can certainly obtain a deep understanding and pass his exams simultaneously.

- Warren

 

[mathwonk]

thank you Warren. I spent the day trying to think how to do a better job answering the OPs actual question.

 

[Cyrus]

I still don't get your point. You say that you should master the material, and then you say that grades don't matter, when in fact the two go hand in hand. (unless you attend Mickey Mouse University.)

This is rediculous...

So what are you saying, that students that study the material hard and get good grades don't know what their doing, or don't master the material? ...uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm talking to a wall.


Your posts are all a contradiction to themselves!

 

[mathwonk]

Cyrus,

well, i think it is possible to get good grades e.g. by choosing the easy grading profs, rather than by studying hard. I used to do this myself.

Maybe at your school this is not possible. So if you are at an ideal school, you are probably assuming that good grades mean understanding.

this is what it should mean, but as a profesor I know that I myself sometimes frustrate this ideal by doing a poor job of grading. so i am trying to remind the student to try to both earn good grades, and also to understand the concepts.

if you are lucky, and your school does a great job of teaching and grading, perhaps you only have to try to get good grades, and then understanding is guaranteed. but this is not alwaysso.

doe this make better sense?

 

[CPL.Luke]

although mathwonk you went to a top notch grad school right? there was a study a while back that said that grades in grad school really don't matter as then your looking at research work. But mathwonk if you hadn't taken the easy profs in your undergrad to get the good grades would you have gotten into the top notch grad school that you did? considering that its possible to get far more understanding in gradschool than you get in undergrad, then maybe by taking easy profs and getting the god grades you were able to get a far better education over the course of your education.

 

[Cyrus]

Cyrus,

well, i think it is possible to get good grades e.g. by choosing the easy grading profs, rather than by studying hard. I used to do this myself.

Maybe at your school this is not possible. So if you are at an ideal school, you are probably assuming that good grades mean understanding.

this is what it should mean, but as a profesor I know that I myself sometimes frustrate this ideal by doing a poor job of grading. so i am trying to remind the student to try to both earn good grades, and also to understand the concepts.

if you are lucky, and your school does a great job of teaching and grading, perhaps you only have to try to get good grades, and then understanding is guaranteed. but this is not alwaysso.

doe this make better sense?

Yes, I see what you mean. If that is the case, I'm afraid the student should find another school to transfer to, and fast.

In my vibrations class, for instance, there is one guy who the professor told me has a 100 and a 95% on the exams, but never turns in the HW. So, he is giving the guy a nice big fat F. He said "its too bad, he's smart but does not do the work, so I am not going to pass him." The grading is absolute in that class, if you get an 89.999999999999999999999, you get a B. Reading some of the BS that goes on in other schools makes me shudder.

Thats not to say that my school is perfect, but my god, its not as horrible as what I read about some of these other places.

Out of curiosity, how many people here can get away with turning in late homework or assignments? I know jason was complaining about it before, and I'd like to know. Around here anything not turned in the day of, in class, gets a zero, no exceptions, ever.

 

[mathwonk]

well of course this debate is interesting, but let me try to tell you the truth. I did get into grad school at brandeis by taking a course from a prof who gave grades based on memorization, and I was good at that. so i did get in based somewhat on a good grade that meant little.

(when eilenberg interviewed me at columbia, he thought i did not deserve to get in there and declined my application. so actual lack of understanding kept me out of columbia. he recommended i go somewhere that would allow me more time to mature, like maybe maryland. he thought brandeis would be too demanding for me. he was right i guess.)

so after I got there, I was on my own. I was in trouble because of my poor undergrad preparation, but i was reasonably smart, and i tried hard, and was taught by a wonderful professor maurice auslander, who made us work, and I began to distinguish myself a little by my ability. so in grad school ability and hard work began to matter over prior gpa.

but then I lost focus again, from the vietnam war, and bounced out of school again. Eventually, after teaching 4 more years to refresh my preparation, I went back to grad school at utah.

by this time i had a family and was resolved to try my best and see how good i could be. I refused any longer to pretend I was smart. I agreed with myself to try as hard as possible, so i could find out just how good I could be.

As i have told, i quickly found others much smarter than me, but still found that if i worked hard i could do well. so i was not as good as i hoped, but was far more successful than i had been while refusing to do my best.

By this time I had learned both to work hard enough to keep up my gpa, and also to try to learn well and impress people with my actual knowledge. I.E. I HAD LEARNED BOTH TO PLAY THE GAME i.e. to IMPRESS PEOPLE WHO JUST LOOKED AT THE GPA, and also to try as hard as possible to impress people who actually understod something.

This combination worked best. And soon i was able to focus almost entirely on just the math. Advisors appreciate so much finding a student who really wants to learn that I could ride on their grant coattails for quite some time.

Anyway, there is obviously a balance to be achieved here, but i really have faith in doing your absolute best, and it will be noticed. After becoming a professional, I noticed that every time i proved a good theorem i would be invited to speak about it, almost as if by magic, as if there were some kind of early waRNING SYSTEM INFORMING THE COMMUNITY THAT I haD ACTUALLY DONE SOMETHING GOOD.

SO DON'T BE FOOLISH, BUT KEEP THE FAITH.

oh and i had a fun rejoinder with eilenberg. after i became a harvard postdoc, he was speaking at brandeis and i went to his talk and introduced myself as a student he had interviewed, he asked where I was then and i said harvard. he immediately began to apologize for rejecting me, saying stuff like, well we can't tell how good you are in a single interview and so on.

but aCTUALLY HE WAS RIGHt to reject me, i just got better once i learned not to worry about my rep, and just work as hard as i could. but i didn't tell him that, and it was very pleasant to hear that from him.

it is amazing how much clout names like harvard have in the community. but do not be intimidated by them. if you do your best and honestly try to follow the advice of people you respect, you will go much farther than you could have imagined.

and if you are doing the work you love, you will not care where you are doing it, or who is praising you for it. It will be its own reward.

 

[mathwonk]

cyrus, i think you are very lucky to be at such a strict school. i was thinking of advising the student to find the toughest prof he could at his school and work as hard as possible to get good grades from him or her. but you may be right that he should consider a transfer.

 

[Knavish]

This "debate" is a mess. Some are going on about how students should aim to get good grades because of their practical value, others on how they should aim to gain understanding because of its satisfactory value, and still others on how the two aims are correlated. What are we debating?

Anyway, I agree with what seems to be mathwonk's advice to students: Approach learning as a personal adventure. As the life and beauty of the subject itself unfolds to you, the importance of grades will naturally disappear.

 

[verty]

In my vibrations class, for instance, there is one guy who the professor told me has a 100 and a 95% on the exams, but never turns in the HW. So, he is giving the guy a nice big fat F. He said "its too bad, he's smart but does not do the work, so I am not going to pass him." The grading is absolute in that class, if you get an 89.999999999999999999999, you get a B. Reading some of the BS that goes on in other schools makes me shudder.

This is one of the reasons I won't return to study. For someone who knows the work perfectly well, it doesn't make sense to force them to do arbitrary homework. The purpose of a course would seem to be to ensure the person understands the subject. Homework is selected because it will illustrate the principles that are being taught. By doing the homework, students will gain insight into the principles. For someone who knows the principles, homework is pointless.

If there is another reason for homework, like that the aim is to get people to work well, there should be a separate course for that. There should be an applied course about how to learn, how to represent knowledge, etc. To me, that would make so much more sense.

If you require someone who knows the principles to do the homework, they will only reason that the educator has an insufficient understanding of the matter. Enforcing the homework requirement without any explanation is a draconian measure and these folks will only reply in draconian ways, they will do as much work as is required and no more.

That's why these so-called geniuses have low marks, because they think the system is flawed, and if it isn't, the onus is on the educator to explain it to them. If the geniuses are coming out with low marks, the education policies are flawed. That is a simple truth.

Now I must admit that I studied in South Africa and perhaps it is different elsewhere, but my experience was that to do well, all that was required was to give the lecturer what he or she wanted. Answering the question according to how it was asked was a secondary concern, you might even be marked down for doing that; that approach might hurt you.

So in my limited experience, studying at university didn't promote independent thinking at all, but rather promoted one producing what the lecturer wanted without question. My conclusion was that the educators don't think independently.

Perhaps I'm being hard on them; perhaps they don't know any better and they are catering for the average student, etc. But then consequently, the best advice I can give to any student is to simply regurgitate what you know they want to see. Read the textbook yourself, etc, but that is really only for personal enjoyment; do it so that you feel your time was worthwhile, but don't mistake the nature of the game.

You are there to give them what they want to see, and if you give them what they want to see, you score highly. For your own benefit, read through your textbooks on your own and gain a good understanding, but don't expect to be rewarded for that until you are working.

So in a sense, grades count sooner, understanding counts later. You need both, but while you are studying, accept that all you are is a number. When you get into a job, having a good understanding will give you enjoyment which is obviously very important. You won't feel like you are an automaton merely doing what the boss wants, because you will be able to apply your understanding and learn at the same time.

Get past your study as soon as you can and don't look back. Get that piece of paper; believe me it means little more than just that. It states that you went through the meat-grinder that is further education. Now educate yourself.

 

[Cyrus]

Sounds like a horrible university, sorry. Ask for a refund.

If you already know the material, why are you in the class?

What you wrote shows that you have a very wrong opinion about what the university is about.

 

[morphism]

cyrus, I think your concept of a good university is skewed. In my book, a course you're doing extremely well on but fail because you don't want to hand in some tedious assignments isn't an indication of good grading policies; in fact, I'd go as far as saying that is an extremely terrible grading policy and the instructor should re-evaluate what he's doing. If I don't do the mundane assignments I should get 0 on that portion of the course. So unless the assignments are weighted enough for 0% on them will give me a final grade of an F, then your instructor is plainly unfair.

A good university isn't one that forces its students to do meaningless tasks in their courses and grades them harshly, and a good course is one that makes you completely forget about the grade and entice you enough to learn and understand the material. I've experienced both worlds, and I can tell you, the latter is much more satisfying and you will probably end up with a good grade in the long run.

 

[Cyrus]

Yeah, right. He's unfair because his syllabus says that you have to do the homework, and that all grades are final, period. You, are the one that is being unfair, and lazy. You deserve the F he gives you. Are you going to tell your boss, "oh, I don't think its fair for me to do this work, I get most of my other work done."...

 

[morphism]

I don't think I'm being unfair or lazy at all. Does his syllabus say that you will FAIL the course if you don't hand in assignments? If so, that isn't unfair, but he should drop this archaic mindset.

Also, your analogy makes no sense. We're talking about grading policies, not your job. Both are entirely different things, even if you're under the misconception that they aren't.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes, it does say that. Explicitly. The HW is worth 35% of your grade. Don't do it, and you WILL FAIL.

Your final grade is based entirely on your demonstrated proficiency of the subject as determined by your
grades on the examinations, and homework assignments. Questions regarding grading of an exam
must be resolved within ten days from the time the graded exams are returned.

The grades are calculated EXACTLY as follows:
A>=90%, 90>B >=80, 80>C>=70, 70>D>=60, & F<60

Yes, you are being lazy. I don't want to hear your excuses. You need to learn what's called, 'work ethic'.


What kind of school do you go to where you can pass without doing work? I am interested to know.


Boy, after reading so many peoples replies on here, I must admit. I am not impressed.

 

[marlon]

cyrus, i think you are very lucky to be at such a strict school.

I read this thread with a lot of interest and i agree with Cyrus. But i wonder about one thing here : why is he going to such a strict school? I mean, "if you do not do the work, you fail" isn't that normal ? I say YES

For example, when i was in college (and this goes for most colleges in know of in Western Europe) some professors even said that if you don't turn in projects, practica, etc in time, you cannot participate with the actual final examination. So, you have already failed that subject. It is THAT simple.

Policy like that should be the NORMAL WAY.

marlon

 

[morphism]

It doesn't say that.

Your final grade is based entirely on your demonstrated proficiency of the subject as determined by your
grades on the examinations, and homework assignments.

Right. Someone who gets 100% and 95% on the exams hasn't demonstrated sufficient proficiency - he deserves to fail!

You're still calling me lazy, and you're still wrong. The fact of the matter is if I see an assignment whose questions are entirely "busywork" and mindless tasks, I'd much rather spend my time doing something more worthwhile. I suspect that this is what your classmate was doing. The simple truth is just because I'm not handing in any work that doesn't mean I'm not doing any. Hell, I could be solving most of the difficult problems in the text, but can't be bothered to do the stupid assignments.

I feel sorry for you if you think failing people based on their willingness to do things they clearly can do is something that should be the norm. The fair and sensible thing to do is to pre-assign a set percentage for the assignment marks (like, in your case, 35%), and if the student doesn't hand in any work, their course automatically becomes out of 65%.

Although your classmate might well be lazy, but I'm saying that this is false in the general case.

I'll draw from my own experience. At one semester I had an easy computer science course and a very difficult and challenging abstract algebra course. The CS assignments were so pathetic and boring, that I would have rathered to set my hair on fire than do them. On the day they were due, I'd do them between my lectures and hand in my half-assed work at the end of the day. (Strangely enough, I only failed one, and even got a 90 on another.) However, I also easily aced the exams because the material was so straightforward. I ended up with an 84 on that course (and it could have been much worse had I not gotten lucky on the assignments, and I wouldn't have even cared).

Now, on the other hand, for my algebra course I'd spend countless hours agonizing over the problem sets. They were so difficult and challening that you would be insane not to want to do them. In fact, I spent lots of time doing the bonus probems instead of the mindless CS assignments. I eneded up with a 97 on this course, even though it was infinitely harder than my CS course. However, the CS course was just not interesting to me and I find it extremely difficult to work on something I find dull.

I don't care if you think I'm lazy because I'm not. I believe my time is too valuable to be wasted doing meaningless tasks, and I cringe in disgust at courses that force these things upon you.

And finally, there doesn't necessarily have to be a correlation between doing work and handing in assignments. This is another misconception you seem to have, because you're saying things like "what kind of school do you go to where you can pass without doing work?"

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

I think that doing the work can only benefit you in the end. Although of course you have to prioritize and if you have a subject you are struggling with it is probably smart to do the homework set from that course first, it surely can't be bad to do the problem set from the "easy" course after that.. It shows the prof that you are serious about your studies and that can come in handy later on I think.

Not to mention that you become sure that you know the material.

 

[eGuevara]

I used to dislike homework. I thought it was merely a way to increase the promotion of a hard course. I never did any, because I thought I was superior to everyone of my classmates, and instead focused on acing my tests. I passed the first couple of years of univ. that way easily... then I started my physics courses. Physics has a way of teaching you humility. Now, even though I still think I'm smart, I do not think I'm a genious (in fact, a prof. let me on to that ).

Now I think one should approach his/her work eagerly and with humility. No matter how trivial it seems, it was assigned by someone who, at the moment, knows MUCH more than you do. You can learn something from everything, even the dumbest of homeworks.

If you feel a course is too easy (easy and trivial homeworks, class is too slow for you, etc.) then there is NO EXCUSE for you to get less than a 90, in fact, I do feel it's kind of dumb not to get one. Don't get me wrong, I agree with mathwonk on the whole "study and understand the concepts", but over here gpa is how you progress (bad gpa == less chance to get into that course you've been wanting to take, bad gpa == bye-bye to that undergrad research position you wanted, etc) so I've learned to appreciate both.

Overall, my advice is (if anyone will take it): Be humble and work hard, it pays off.

Just my 2cents.

 

[vanesch]

There are many strange opinions here in this discussion. One seems to oppose "grades" and "understanding", or "being good at a course material" and "handing in homework".

I think one should keep in mind a few very basic, common-sense ideas:

1) understanding the material should improve your ability to have good grades.

Now, on short term, this might not always be immediately obvious: doing some drill exercises on type problems without understanding the material thoroughly might, in the short run, benefit more to your grades, than first trying to understand the material, and then doing the type problems drill. But tell yourself this: when you understand the material, you will be doing the type problems also much easier. However, don't commit the error of thinking that, when you understand the theory of the material, that you can skip the practicing. You need that just to get certain techniques "almost in the unconscious". You need understanding AND you need practice. But understanding first, and practice afterwards. If you master both, you will normally obtain good grades, and have the material "ready" to help you understand courses that build upon it. Understanding is an investment that will pay off in the near future.

2) Doing assignments helps your understanding and your practice. There's no reason not to do it. Never think that you know some material so well that you can offer yourself the luxury of skipping assignments. There's always something to gain from it (be it simply speed).

3) If you're in a class, do what the instructor tells you that is part of the class, even if you think it is "easy and stupid". If it is easy and stupid, then it is quickly done, no ? And if it isn't, after all, so easy and stupid, then you made a judgment error.
Now, if you find the whole class stupid, then you should have negotiated an equivalence or something, and otherwise, well, sometimes in life, you have to do stupid and easy things.

You're not obliged to be in a class, but if you are, play by the rules fixed by the instructor, try to get as much understanding of the material out of it as you can, and do the work and assignments. Try to get good, fast practice by working problems and assignments. If you do that, normally you should get good grades, and the course will be beneficial later too to you. You've gained some "internal strength" through it (understanding and practice) and you've gained something to show for (good grades). If that is not your aim, you shouldn't be in the class.

 

[G01]

I have followed this thread for sometime and I realized I had to comment on this:

I feel sorry for you if you think failing people based on their willingness to do things they clearly can do is something that should be the norm. The fair and sensible thing to do is to pre-assign a set percentage for the assignment marks (like, in your case, 35%), and if the student doesn't hand in any work, their course automatically becomes out of 65%.

This is the most ridiculous grading procedure I ever heard of. What you are saying is that if I'm taking a course on Quantum Physics and We have a homework assignment on the photo-electric effect worth 10% and I get a 10/10 on it I could sit back the rest of the semester and do nothing. I wouldn't have proved that I know ANYTHING about The Schroedinger Equation, Wave functions, Probablility Densities, Expectation Values, Operator Notation, etc, etc.

Yet, I will get an perfect A in the course because on that one homework assignment I knew how to use the formula E=hf.

I'm sorry. I agree with Cyrus. The guy did not do the work that he KNEW was required for the course. He deserved the F. I don't care if he was the Reincarnation of Einstein, he deserved the F.

 

[physics girl phd]

Some of my friends interviewing for industrial jobs have been asked their GPA (even though they had PhDs!) -- so much that they eventually listed this on their CVs/resumes. They were in Chemical Engineering, but I'd assume this is now probably becoming more "standard" in many companies. So -- as long as the GPA was good enough to get an interview... okay.

But yeah -- don't worry about what OTHER people think of you. That's counter-productive.

 

[Stingray]

Referring to the original posts in this thread, getting a C+ in intro physics is very bad for a physics major. Unless someone didn't try at all (and will change in the future) or had an unusually difficult course, those courses should be easy. Later ones are almost always far more difficult, and require one to understand the freshman material very well to get anywhere at all.

 

[mathwonk]

at the risk of muddying the water further, i want to give my viewpoint as a prof, who actively looks for talented students. We always notice a talented student in our classes, and we are so excited to find a talented stduent that works hard and is willing to take instruction, and strive to be good, that we begin to shepherd their careers immediately from that point.

This year I had a C student who sent me an email asking a really beautiful question and giving his own very insightful answer. This one event immediately put this previously invisible student on my radar, and I told the whole faculty about it. I especially notified the honors counselor and inquired who this guy was. I found some of his friends who were in the honors program and who said he had been with them in high school and should have been in honors at uni too.

So I gave him the name of the honors advisor and told him to make an appointment. Now I do not know if he did, but if he shows even this much responsiveness, we will transform his university experience.

Another time in a freshman seminar I had a bright student, and I immediately got him into the honors section of calc, or a more advanced course, where he began to make a name for himself. He came up for admission to grad school last month and I recognized his name and told my stories about him, and how he ahd impressed me. others had similar stories about him, and he was immediatey included in the accepted pool.

So although grades do matter and reflect both ability and hard work, the real advantage is to make an impression on a professor. This can be done by showing remarkable ability and talent, but also from unusual stamina and determination. Almost all the grades in an applicant stack for grad school are high. We need to know which ones mean something and which are fake.

Every year I have students who drop my class for an easier class where their grade will be higher but they will learn less. These students go on my list of infamous underachievers immediately and I am uninclined to recommend them for anything. some of these students have carefully preserved 4.0's.

The real difference in geting or not getting a job is in the impression you make on people who write the recommendations, and who give out the jobs.

I used to travel extensively to conferences, both to hear the talks (and give them), and to find out who the promising young people were. I never read their resumes, I just talked to them and listened to them speak. In that situation I do not eve care what other people say abut them. I believe my own ears more. I have identified very outstanding people this way early in their career even though other experts had told me they were unimpressed.

Regardless of your resume, unless you have a deep understanding of your subject, and can convey that personally to other people, you will not get an academic job. And if you do have that and can do that you will never be without one, at least as long as jobs are available as they are now.

As an example of admission to grad school, I would recommed Hurkyl for our PhD program if he were interested, without looking at his transcript, just based on reading his posts.

 

[Quaoar]

Frankly I'm getting a little sick of Cyrus' elitist attitude towards colleges. There are MANY ways of passing information to others, and until Cyrus shows me some study that conclusively proves that a hard-ass homework policy produces better scholars, I'm going to completely ignore his "your college must suck" comments.

I had some good professors, some mediocre professors, and some awful professors when I went to college. Apparently I didn't "get my money's worth" from the professor I had who didn't even assign homework, but gave lectures that blew all the other professors out of the water. I believe I earned a B-range grade in that class, but that was because he expected so much out of us and the tests were very hard.

Which brings me to another issue: Ease of the course. If you have a hard-line professor who enforces solid percentages and doesn't curve the class, you HAVE to reduce the difficulty of the class to ensure a certain number of students will pass it. If the school allows the professor to fail most of their students, word of mouth will kill enrollment for that professor's class the next time he teaches it. I've seen it happen. I've had some classes where the mean score on the final was in the 30% range because the questions were so difficult. But that's not a bad thing, because it challenges the students. It seems to me that Cyrus frowns on any system that isn't carved in rock.

Frankly, I believe it's fine to have some professors with a more rigid grading policy, if that's what they believe will motivate the students to do well. But to make idiotic comments that a college must suck because the homework isn't given a set weight is very, very closed-minded.

 

[mathwonk]

your comment about having to insure a certain rate passing so the students will take the class, however shows the low point to which the us system has sunk.

this is indeed true at many schools, including mine, but it is a sign of disease in the system. when the stduents determine what level the course is taught at, things are upside down, and cyrus, although somewhat undiplomatically blunt about it, is at least partly right there.

this phenomenon is a result of the market system in the US, where education isa commodity, bought and sold and subject to supply and demand. if education were free, and there were a competition for the best slots, we could make a more careful selection of students and hold them to higher standards.

to some extent this is happening at UGA, because of the HOPE scholarship. I never realized it before, but this is a big plus for this scholarship. It makes us more in control of the standard of education. When the parents and students are paying more for it they can insist the quality be lowered and they often do so.

 

[JSBeckton]

At the end of the day, grades are very important for your first job only. If you get good grades but do poorly at your first job, you will suffer. If you get bad grades but excel at your first job you will prosper. Either way you will end up where you belong.

If I interviewed someone who had poor grades but was obviously very inteligent I would come to one conclusion.... this person is probabaly lazy.

I would probabaly rather hire someone with average grades that's working as hard as they can before hiring a genius with average grades that's not giving it his all.

What did Einstien say? Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration, something like that?

 

[Quaoar]

My argument is mainly that a professor can CHOOSE to grade however he wishes, but people should not generalize and say that only one way works. If a professor thinks that being hyper-strict will work better, fine. If he wants to take a more relaxed attitude, that's fine too. There's no definitive proof that one method works better than the other.

 

[Kurdt]

What did Einstien say? Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration, something like that?

I'm pretty sure that was Edison but either way it still applies.

 

[JSBeckton]

I'm pretty sure that was Edison but either way it still applies.

Edison, Einstein, Peyton Manning........whoever the kids look up to these days.

 

[morphism]

This is the most ridiculous grading procedure I ever heard of. What you are saying is that if I'm taking a course on Quantum Physics and We have a homework assignment on the photo-electric effect worth 10% and I get a 10/10 on it I could sit back the rest of the semester and do nothing. I wouldn't have proved that I know ANYTHING about The Schroedinger Equation, Wave functions, Probablility Densities, Expectation Values, Operator Notation, etc, etc.

Yet, I will get an perfect A in the course because on that one homework assignment I knew how to use the formula E=hf.

I'm sorry. I agree with Cyrus. The guy did not do the work that he KNEW was required for the course. He deserved the F. I don't care if he was the Reincarnation of Einstein, he deserved the F.

That's not what I said at all.

If you did the assignment, you will get that 10%. If you didn't, your final course grade will suffer -10%. What's so unfamiliar about this?

What I was arguing about is that if you do not do 35% of the course material, yet still manage to do 60%, you are entitled to that 60%.

Now:

3) If you're in a class, do what the instructor tells you that is part of the class, even if you think it is "easy and stupid". If it is easy and stupid, then it is quickly done, no ? And if it isn't, after all, so easy and stupid, then you made a judgment error.

Not necessarily. Some assignments, especially in computer science, require a LOT of work and yet they remain unchallenging what-so-ever. Sometimes you're even spoon-fed the algorithms and all that remains is the (usually tedious) task of writing the code. This could take up time that would be put to better use on some other course.

 

[mathwonk]

heres an example of a homework problem i gave once. there was a certain polynomial depending on a parameter t in the book, irreducible for all t, but the polynomial was singular for t = 0.

So i asked the class to compute in detail the resolutions of the singularities at t = 0, and their contribution to the genus, and finally compute the genus directly.

One student figured out a clever way to avoid doing all the computation I told him to do, using the irreducibility of the polynomial, and some other facts we knew. He felt very clever avoiding all the useless busy work i had given him.

The only thing is, the book had a mistake in it. the polynomial really was not irreducible, and if he had done what I told him to he would have disovered that fact as his genus computation would have come out negative.

The purpose of my exercise was for him to discover that the book was wrong, and the value of doing explicit computation for oneself. But he thought he knew better than me what was useful spending his time on.

It is interesting that some students think they are better judges of the value of the work I assign than I am, after 40 years of teaching.