Comment by doonesbury | Hacker News Reader

Comment by doonesbury | Hacker News Reader

I didn't do University until late 20s. And it was a C level state school. But darn it, it was the best 3.5 years of the best bang for buck dollars spent. My major was pure math. I loved it. No boss. No office BS. Just me and my homework. I came to love English the subject I sucked at throughout K-12. I'm forever grateful to Judy Newland (if memory serves that's her name) for holding the line on writing. She told me my semester English paper was a total F. Thank god by my 20s I'd matured enough to stop making excuses. For the first time I took the criticism and asked how can I fix it? Five drafts later I got a C and improved from there in time and more classes. I aced literature classes. I still remember laughing out loud during an Enlightenment Lit final about a quote from Voltaire (satire, "Candide"). Folks, second chances are great. I needed it. And when you're ready to grow Harvard may be great but so are many state Universities too. That's why I tell my older son who's in university now that it's more like a mirror. If you're on fire it'll reflect that back to you. And if you're just passing through uni will be a ok Las Vegas weekend at best: in-out-done as there was no long term vision anyway. I'm less and less convinced that human organizations can light kids up. We gotta come lit up and some hard knocks often helps get that fire started.

There's something you capture that I find interesting about the university system.

> She told me my semester English paper was a total F. Thank god by my 20s I'd matured enough to stop making excuses

I remember being laser focused on grades, so concerned about my ability to deliver on the assessments that sometimes (Especially in those high credit load semesters) I would completely shirk the academic duty of seeking understanding if there was an easier equivalent to get the same grade. It became "I can read half of three books and synthesize a passable Frankenstein's monster".

It wasn't often that I sat down and focused on why this type of self-improvement (I was a good student, but not the greatest), the type of self-improvement which is only motivated by someone actually saying "This sucks" to your face and you trusting that they are telling the truth. I think the only saving grace was my lack of vision [0], ironically, as it forced me to do way more work which naturally forced me to apply myself more vigorously.

> I'm less and less convinced that human organizations can light kids up. We gotta come lit up and some hard knocks often helps get that fire started

For me, it was often my peers that aided in this. I took a few classes where it was much more focused on working as a cohort [1], and those situations connected me far more intimately with the material. I think one of the greatest parts of university that many of the incoming cohort will miss initially is the ability to form the type of peer groups in classes I was able to, which proved to be hugely impactful on my ability to learn the knowledge [2].

[0] two majors, done mostly sequentially in my 4 years at state school

[1] No curves are one example of the type of policy that facilitates this

[3] Or get research jobs, extracurriculars. Especially as as a first generation student who had no clue what they were navigating and a familial support system that did not have the expertise

> I would completely shirk the academic duty of seeking understanding if there was an easier equivalent to get the same grade.

This is rational behavior in mass education systems where grades are important for future success. It's an example of Goodhart's law in action, I suppose.

It was only in my late 20s that I came to understand the true purpose of writing essays, and why essays are so frequently used as a form of assessment. All through my actual education I focused on maximizing my grades while minimizing the effort I expended.

I've been meaning to write an essay on this subject for a while.

But grades aren't important for success, they're important for opportunity. The student with lower grades may lose out on some opportunities, or only get access to them later, but if they've gained better understanding (while a student) of the material, they'll be better off in the long run than the person acing every test and homework, primarily by cramming and forgetting in a week.

Once you get a job, your grades barely matter anymore. And after several positions and a few years in the field, no one is likely to ask for your transcript.

> But grades aren't important for success, they're important for opportunity.

A fair distinction, yes.

> The student with lower grades may lose out on some opportunities, or only get access to them later, but if they've gained better understanding (while a student) of the material, they'll be better off in the long run than the person acing every test and homework, primarily by cramming and forgetting in a week.

I'd like to believe this, but I don't think it's true. Prestige, connections, and opportunity costs are too significant to ignore.

> Once you get a job, your grades barely matter anymore. And after several positions and a few years in the field, no one is likely to ask for your transcript.

True, but at a large enough company you'll participate in a performance review system in which you'll regularly be given a literal grade which influences your career trajectory. Goodhart's law comes into effect again.

Goodhart's law comes in because students who do not deserve good grades still can get them via other means besides than the professor intended. Hence grades become less trustworthy (they might lack understanding but "hacked" their way through via cramming etc). However understanding the material also leads to good grades. It's not like there's a trade-off there where students must choose one and thereby lose the other.

It’s all about the opportunity. If you are competing with someone for a promotion, the easiest way to win is to deny them the opportunity to excel. Have seen this again and again. That is why there are always battles for projects.

Opportunities are very often just thresholds you have to cross. Once you get a job, not only your grades barely matter anymore, but also most of your knowledge and experience. Companies are very bad at evaluating individual contribution, so it's much easier to stay in than to get in.

Or, in picture form: imagining you start on the left of the graph and can move along the curve to the right, reality isn't like this:

  Skills
  required
   ^            -------
   |           /
   |   -------/
   |--------------------> Salary

but rather, it's like this:

  Skills
  required
   ^            
   |           /\
   |   -------/  \------
   |--------------------> Salary

And that little fence to cross is mostly looking at your grades, not actual understanding.

"Candide" is bizarre, surprisingly many laugh-out-loud moments in that book.

It's especially apt today, because we are living in the best of all possible worlds.

Would have been a game changer I’d I didn’t start college until age 25 when the male brain is fully formed. Pros and cons, since you do delay 7 years of entry level earning but it would have been a very different experience! Perhaps even just 1-2 yr gap year gets a similar affect!

What did you do after?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com