Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The real question is do A students build their identity around success in school while C students go for something more broad.
This is yet another thing the study was getting at (I think), and perhaps I'm projecting my life experiences, Russian/American cultural differences nonewithstanding. For all I know, maybe the people who wrote the original article were projecting too.
Still, my life experiences were kind of similar, at least until my mid 20's: good grades (read: nerdy) in high school, focused on academics in college, dedicated my life to work. "Computer nerd" was what I identified with, even if somewhat in jest. But I wasn't happy. My life improved when I found passions and hobbies---as well as personal identity---unrelated to work, and focused more on them, relegating work to the status of something that pays the bills and provides a diversion during 9 to 5. (But even then, I do it right and do it well; none of those stereotypical, ahem..., Millennial behaviors, like sitting on Facebook or taking 2-hour lunches.) Perhaps C-students simply end up doing that earlier in life than A-students; neither is worse than the other.
I was having a conversation with a past colleague, who I met for lunch the other day. After catching up, we went off on a tangent about psychology theories, one the stuff he's into. He talked about how A-students and C-students find out who they are while growing up. Namely, kids who get straight A's put all their eggs in one basket, when it comes to their sense of self: the academics being pushed onto them. While kids who get mostly C's quickly learn to separate trash from treasure, and figure out which messages to embrace and which to disregard. Then as young adults, C-students have a much easier time finding themselves than A-students, be it through partying, hobbies, or college coursework.
He summarized it this way: "If you ask an A-student 'Who are you?', he will say '6th-grader at [Name of School]'. If you ask a C-student 'Who are you?', he will say 'John Smith'." The same is true for adults: a former A-student will say his job description, and a former C-student will say his name. (Unless they came to a different mindset over the years.) Neither were my past colleague's original beliefs; it's something he read on a psychology site, accepted for himself, and shared with me.
So how true do you think this is? (the italicized statement)
No.
People don't seem to notice what an important role social skills play in achievement, even academic achievement. Case in point, I was a C student in school even though I was good at academics. I had very poor executive functioning skills, was teased quite a bit by my peers, had very poor handwriting, and didn't really know how to talk to my teachers. Had anyone asked me if I thought I was college material, I would have told them, "no," but upon graduating from high school, I found the real world was too much to handle, so I retreated to college as a last resort and flourished. I maintained a perfect B average as an undergraduate, and I got an A average as a graduate student. It didn't really help my job prospects, though. I worked part-time all the way through graduate school. I still don't know who I am, and my employment prospects feel shaky.
Compare my progress with the A students. These were the socialites of the group, most likely. They probably included some "nerds" but also people who were involved in sports, cheerleading, and after school clubs. These kids flourished in so many ways and got support that us real nerds could only dream of, such as in-house tutoring and an extra block for homework. They were also involved in after school clubs, so they were in constant communication with the teachers and other students. Those were the A students. They had the best of all worlds in high school, and the ones I know of went on to become doctors and lawyers.
..
Compare my progress with the A students. These were the socialites of the group, most likely. They probably included some "nerds" but also people who were involved in sports, cheerleading, and after school clubs. These kids flourished in so many ways and got support that us real nerds could only dream of, such as in-house tutoring and an extra block for homework. They were also involved in after school clubs, so they were in constant communication with the teachers and other students. Those were the A students. They had the best of all worlds in high school, and the ones I know of went on to become doctors and lawyers.
I think you've misinterpreted something along the way. From my experience, being a socialite had nothing to do with being an A student, nor were there extra blocks for in-house tutoring (???) and homework. They got no more, and often less support than the C students. What they did do was work their butts off. Sports and afterschool clubs means more time working on something and less time for play. School, practice, meetings, activities, homework were their life. They didn't have the "best of all worlds" like you believe; they went on to become whatever they did because of the work ethic, not because someone handed it to them.
The real question is do A students build their identity around success in school while C students go for something more broad.
I agree that A students get on an "institutionalized track". You see it in professions like law or medicine. It's like a huge fraternity. They define themselves by the prestige of their career. When they make a phone call to someone they identify themselves as "Attorney John Smith" etc.
A students are handed a script and assigned a role by the authority figures in society and fall into line without questioning it.
I would agree that a C student is more likely to work off-the-beaten-path as an entrepreneur or businessman. There is more room for creativity outside of an institutionalized track. They don't have a wall of facts and theories to hide behind, they're too busy hustling in the real-world for that non-sense.
C students are liberated by their mediocrity.
Or do C students have no identity at all. I do see A students building their identity around their GPA but I see C students floundering. Often they have no clue who they are and have nothing in their life that they consider success because for students high grades = success. At the start of the year I have my students decorate folders to put their work into throughout the year and one of the quadrants is set aside for a success. That one is a struggle for many students. Perhaps the C student answers with their name because they have nothing else to answer with.
I agree that C students are more likely to work off the beaten path because the beaten path doesn't work for them. It works for the A student. That's the student who will get into the best schools, programs and get the most scholarships to continue on the beaten path. The C student is left to figure out something on their own not because that is their nature but because that's the only choice left. We hand things to the kids who follow the rules, who jump through the hoops and then leave the rest to figure it out on their own. Some do and some don't. Some become entrepreneurs and some become drug addicts.
The issue IMO is how we treat A students vs C students. We SAY we want individuals but reward the student who follows the rules. IMO this thwarts creativity. I hate that colleges go after the kids with high GPA's. Those are the kids who are just good at following rules. We have this idea there is only one path to success when there should be many.
This is yet another thing the study was getting at (I think), and perhaps I'm projecting my life experiences, Russian/American cultural differences nonewithstanding. For all I know, maybe the people who wrote the original article were projecting too.
Still, my life experiences were kind of similar, at least until my mid 20's: good grades (read: nerdy) in high school, focused on academics in college, dedicated my life to work. "Computer nerd" was what I identified with, even if somewhat in jest. But I wasn't happy. My life improved when I found passions and hobbies---as well as personal identity---unrelated to work, and focused more on them, relegating work to the status of something that pays the bills and provides a diversion during 9 to 5. (But even then, I do it right and do it well; none of those stereotypical, ahem..., Millennial behaviors, like sitting on Facebook or taking 2-hour lunches.) Perhaps C-students simply end up doing that earlier in life than A-students; neither is worse than the other.
Is your assumption, then, that students who are academically high achieving are more likely to lack an interest in other pursuits outside of academia?
I'm don't know that I buy that. It is, in fact, possible to be an "A student," and have "passions, hobbies, and a personal identity." In fact, students who are active in extracurriculars, volunteering, holding a part-time job as a teen, etc., and other non-academic pursuits often become more adept at managing their time well, and this pays off in their schoolwork. There is obviously a learning curve on balance, and there's a tipping point, too, where students will become extremely involved in hobbies and such, and get overextended, failing to balance academics and other priorities, but students who learn to hit that sweet spot and learn to balance early on typically do quite well academically.They learn time management and prioritizing early on.
I think there's an interesting tendency to glorify the supposed "C-student" as being "above" defining themselves by grades/school performance/academia, and somehow having things "more figured out" than the academically higher achieving students, but I don't buy it, overall.
I'm sure that there are mediocre students would LIKE to be perceived as "having a leg up," and would prefer that higher-achieving students be written off as mindlessly rule-following automatons, whereas they, on the other hand, are the REAL smart ones, the intellectually liberated free-thinkers. I've been classmates with students who considered themselves "too smart for school," and just didn't participate in the process, actively rebelled against it, and finished with a lackluster academic record, but have chips on their shoulder if they are considered of average or below-average intelligence/drive based on that.
Lots of people want to be, or want others to think of them as, "the genius who did poorly in school because they didn't buy into the establishment BS" or similar.
Especially since a lot of A students are just kids who've figured out how to play the game efficiently and that if they do so, they'll get a lot more leeway to do as they like.
For starters, A students are not a homogenous group; you've got three main subtypes:
1. Those who are exceptionally bright and get A's with minimal effort
2. Those who are willing to put in the time and hard work to get A's, even if the subject is very challenging for them
3. Those who are willing to cheat to get A's
I was the Type 1 A student: especially in math and science, most topics came naturally to me, so I spent ver little time studying. The real world is difficult for people like me, sine we are not used to working hard and/or long hours. Unfortunately, in most jobs, whether rightfully or wrongfully, the most valued employee is whoever works the longest hours for the lowest salary. Also, people like myself didn't need to be so concerned about whether or not my teachers liked me (as I said in other threads, most teachers hate me), since I'd still get A's in their classes, unless they were completely "unfair". Unfortunately, in the real world, "corporate fit" is considered one of the most important factors.
To me, college was the 4 best years of my life, since it was basically a 4 year vacation. The real world is much harder for me. Most of my colleagues, however, considered college to be the 4 toughest and most miserable years of their life, and they consider the real world to be much easier. Most of them were mediocre students, or the Type 2 or 3 A students that you described above.
I was the Type 1 A student: especially in math and science, most topics came naturally to me, so I spent ver little time studying. The real world is difficult for people like me, sine we are not used to working hard and/or long hours. Unfortunately, in most jobs, whether rightfully or wrongfully, the most valued employee is whoever works the longest hours for the lowest salary. Also, people like myself didn't need to be so concerned about whether or not my teachers liked me (as I said in other threads, most teachers hate me), since I'd still get A's in their classes, unless they were completely "unfair". Unfortunately, in the real world, "corporate fit" is considered one of the most important factors.
To me, college was the 4 best years of my life, since it was basically a 4 year vacation. The real world is much harder for me. Most of my colleagues, however, considered college to be the 4 toughest and most miserable years of their life, and they consider the real world to be much easier. Most of them were mediocre students, or the Type 2 or 3 A students that you described above.
A story to explain why I think that the Type 1 A students like myself (the ones that get A's with minimal effort) have a hard time in the real world:
When I was in college, one of my classes was taught by an adjunct professor who was the owner of an engineering firm. He decided to have a review session for a major exam during spring break. I lived on campus, and the dorms close during spring break.
I did not attend the review session; did not feel that I needed to. When I returned after spring break, I was reprimanded by the professor for being the only student not to attend his review session. I explained that the dorms were closed and that I live on campus, so I could not attend. He then responded "You are an engineer. You need to make sacrifices". He then explained several ways that I could have attended his review session: I could have stayed at a friend's house; I could have stayed at a hotel; I could have driven up for the review session and then drive back home; or I could have spent the night sleeping in my car.
Yes, I could have done any of those options. But I saw no point in doing any of those options for an exam I was feeling confident about, and felt that attending the review session would at most make the difference between getting a B vs. and A on the exam. None of those sacrifices were worth it to get a B rather than an A on a single exam. However for the students who were fighting to get a D on the exam rather than an F, they would need to do whatever it takes to get the D. Any of those options would have been worth it for someone trying to get a D rather than an F on the exam. Unfortunately for me, in the real world, you are always fighting for a D rather than an F. So people like myself were never prepared for that.
I think there's an interesting tendency to glorify the supposed "C-student" as being "above" defining themselves by grades/school performance/academia, and somehow having things "more figured out" than the academically higher achieving students, but I don't buy it, overall.
I'm sure that there are mediocre students would LIKE to be perceived as "having a leg up," and would prefer that higher-achieving students be written off as mindlessly rule-following automatons, whereas they, on the other hand, are the REAL smart ones, the intellectually liberated free-thinkers. I've been classmates with students who considered themselves "too smart for school," and just didn't participate in the process, actively rebelled against it, and finished with a lackluster academic record, but have chips on their shoulder if they are considered of average or below-average intelligence/drive based on that.
Lots of people want to be, or want others to think of them as, "the genius who did poorly in school because they didn't buy into the establishment BS" or similar.
But are they all, really? Really?
Well put!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
