Hacker News Reader

"99% of the time they're not a measure of ability, they're a measure of obedience, and your ability to persuade teachers."

This is false. Grades correlate reasonably well with ability. Plenty of people get good grades without corresponding ability, but 99% is a laughable exaggeration.

Grades correlate reasonably well with ability.

What would be evidence for that statement, in view of the parent comment to yours that disagrees with that conclusion? Where would one look for research on this issue?

One old book that I read back in high school days

http://www.amazon.com/Wad-Ja-Get-Grading-Game-American-Educa...

suggested that grades correlate less well with ability (or any other meaningful characteristic of students) than supposed by the teachers who give grades to students. I'd love to hear about current research on this issue.

"Grades correlate reasonably well with ability."

... as measured by grades.

Seriously? Do you really believe that? Given a room of people do you honestly believe that in talking about, let's say Math, or Physics, or Chemistry that you couldn't immediately identify which of them had grades in the top 25th percentile versus the lower 25th percentile? I bet I could _even without having studied those domains_ in 20+ years.

Now, I'll agree that grades don't correlate _perfectly_ with ability for _everyone_ - we all know the bright slacker who doesn't turn in his homework, and maybe skips a test or two. But, in general, a student who score 95% in physics knows their material very well. A student who scores 15% in physics is probably clueless.

Math, Physics, and Chemistry are easy to objectively grade, so I'd accept that they tend to have higher grade quality (a notional metric of the correlation of grades to ability) than e.g. literature, drama, sociology, pottery, etc, where the grade quality correlates to the ability of the grader.

Physics classes don't prove a blanket statement regarding grade quality over all subjects, any more than Yao Ming proves that Chinese people tend to be seven feet tall, or the King of Sweden proves that Swedes tend to be kings.

Lets test your hypothesis. I put your written communication skills in the bottom 50%. Did you earn good marks in English?

Horrible marks in English. And yes, I do apologize for subjecting everyone to my subpar written communication skills.

Touche: hypothesis supported

Also sorry for being snooty. It is easy to get riled up whenever someone tells you how smart you are.

This is especially true of people who make a living from ostensibly being clever. Some of us, clearly including myself, are insecure.

If nothing you did in school had any relation whatsoever to the real world, you got screwed.

"If nothing you did in school had any relation whatsoever to the real world, you got screwed."

And, since no one ever gets screwed, we can therefore conclude that your original argument is correct!

Except that's not what I said. Too many people around here try to pretend that grades mean absolutely nothing. I doubt that nothing you did in school had any relation to the real world, and I pointed that out to you in the hope that you'd realize that the burden of proof in this argument rests on those who would try to argue that grades mean nothing. In the absence of actual data, which no one has provided, it doesn't make sense to give any merit to the anecdotal arguments of the minority rather than the equally anecdotal arguments of the majority.

On the contrary, I stated that grades measured the ability to get grades, which is almost tautological.

Demonstrating anything beyond that would require proof, hence the burden of proof is squarely yours. :)

With a range of classes from remedial, normal, advanced, and honors and a selection of electives I think most people's are intelligent enough to get a 4.0 in HS but few people can get there without significant drive. Compare that with a medical program where you really do need to be fairly intelligent, knowledgeable about your subject and willing to work your ass off to get a 4.0.

I've got nothing against using test scores for admissions, but grades are incredibly subjective. 99% of the time they're not a measure of ability, they're a measure of obedience, and your ability to persuade teachers.

The same thing is true for college, so I imagine if they're selecting for those criteria they'll do well.

I feel it's safe to say that you are an outlier.

Anybody who's exceptionally good at anything is an outlier.

I think he just meant you're not indicative of a large population. The article is about boys generally, not particular ones that don't do their homework but do well on tests.

> I would of been in and out in 2 years

"I of a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color have their skin but by the content have their character.

I of a dream today!"

Is the `of' significant?

He is pointing out that "would of" should have been written as "would have."

I don't know. To me, "would of" is not a typo such as "mroe" instead of "more" caused by a slip of the fingers, or skipping over a word because you are hurrying, and it's not a minor mental slip such as continuing a short-term pattern of apostrophe use, e.g. "the cat's over here, the cat's over there, the cat's everywhere and the pigeon's are in a state", and it is not in the same category as the mixup between "your" and "you're", because both are in very common use - "would've" is in very common use but "would of" is not (500M Google results for would've plus would have, only 5M for would of).

"Would of" gives me the impression of someone who either doesn't read much (where do you ever see 'would of' in a formal published paper or book outside quotations/dialogue?), or doesn't pronounce what they say clearly (because if they did it would reinforce that 've and of are different), or doesn't pay enough attention to what they are writing to think 'oh that's not right'.

It was also because it was in the midst of a post about how the author was great at a foreign language and should have been allowed to finish schooling sooner, even though this is the sort of mistake that seems to be made more by uneducated people which would counter the idea that leaving school sooner would have been a good plan.

I was trying to draw attention to it by butchering a famous speech to make it stand out, and because I don't just want to say "dumbass ha ha", but wonder whether it is in a different class of mistake to the usual mistakes seen on the internet (possibly along with "if I would have known" - how can people say that instead of "if I had known" without realising that it means something completely different?).

Also, interesting how as soon as I posted it it was voted down, then over a day or two it climbed back to +4 or so, and now has been knocked down again. What kinds of people are doing which kind of voting?

Interesting.

I make silly mistakes when I am tired. I doubt more schooling would help me.