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.
No extra help in our local HS either. In fact there's a daily list on the office window showing the id # of kids that are ineligible for sports or extra curricular activities. I remember the stress when there was an academically weak kid in one HS play who had a lead role. The cast actually kept at him to keep his grades up. Some schools do try to put academics first.
This is much like my kids HS. Both my kids played. Sports are important, but secondary to academics. The football team loses more than they win, but the coach has a higher academic requirement than the state. This is a school where the cool kids are actually in honor society and the athletes all want to bet picked for theatre.
Now in contrast however, the HS I attended was sports oriented. Academics were secondary. Cheerleading was a popularity contest for the girls, not an ability tryout. Good football players could skip practices and still start while hard working but less skilled sat the bench. College was not encouraged. Only about 15% of us went to college. Football coach was also the principal.
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
Same goes for C students:
1. Those who are fine with coasting and putting in minimal effort
2. Those who struggle academically and worked hard for those C's
3. Those who have other circumstances outside of class that prevents them from putting in as much effort as they would under normal circumstances
I think the above is close but biased; as shown by the lack of symmetry of circumstances and the apparent and general assumptions that those who get A's do so for admirable reasons and those who get C's do so for pitiful reasons.
- exceptionally bright students can carry a C average
- not all straight A students are exceptionally bright or retain the information
- many straight A students tend to learn, with minimal effort, the way teachers teach
- cheating tends to result in C's and B's (most of the time)
- most A students have other circumstances outside of class that enable them to get A's (usually, parents who've set expectations and inculcate learning as a core value and/or such students tend not to be poor)
- grades have little bearing on future outcomes in most cases (though, I'll admit, arguments to the contrary are compelling and intuitive but many truths are counter-intuitive)
[My bias/experience: I've carried a low of 2.0 and high of 3.4 GPA, got college credit from CLEP tests, earned all my degrees in fewer semesters than typically expected; none of my classes' valedictorians/salutatorians had stellar (or even notable) careers in their field, I taught 10th grade for a while]
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.
No, those are the kids who busted their butts in their classes. And more than likely took AP classes. No one gets a high GPA by following the rules. They get there by hard work, discipline and persistence.
It might just be the GPA. Continual assessment is all about controlling , micromanaging the students. It forces children to be compliant rather than brilliant , it encourages children to work long and hard instead of learning to fully understand the topic or "grok" it.
Frankly the only reason it is in use is because it trains humans to "GRIND" early in life. Americans spend MORE hours of their life WORKING than almost any other nation on the planet. (clearly more than any other developed nation).
teaching kids to be grinders teaches them to define themselves as workers rather than people. In the USA you have little choice but to grind out your grades. thus you learn early in life to just work work work...
I see some of the smartest kids , the 3%. getting rubbish grades because they do not want to comply with pointless BS. And because they can think for themselves. So the ace the tests but flunk the pointless busy work.
Again, you ignore people like myself who did not need to "grind" in school, and were able to get A's through minimal effort. People like myself were underprepared for the real world, since we weren't used to "grinding".
Ditto for my kids' school. I remember one of the best gymnasts on the team being ineligible for the regional meet (the meet to qualify for state) because of her grades. She couldn't compete, our team didn't make it to state.
Yep. My high school took academic eligibility seriously, too.
I think the above is close but biased; as shown by the lack of symmetry of circumstances and the apparent and general assumptions that those who get A's do so for admirable reasons and those who get C's do so for pitiful reasons.
- exceptionally bright students can carry a C average
- not all straight A students are exceptionally bright or retain the information
- many straight A students tend to learn, with minimal effort, the way teachers teach
- cheating tends to result in C's and B's (most of the time)
- most A students have other circumstances outside of class that enable them to get A's (usually, parents who've set expectations and inculcate learning as a core value and/or such students tend not to be poor)
- grades have little bearing on future outcomes in most cases (though, I'll admit, arguments to the contrary are compelling and intuitive but many truths are counter-intuitive)
[My bias/experience: I've carried a low of 2.0 and high of 3.4 GPA, got college credit from CLEP tests, earned all my degrees in fewer semesters than typically expected; none of my classes' valedictorians/salutatorians had stellar (or even notable) careers in their field, I taught 10th grade for a while]
I have known many "A" students who, as you said, have not had stellar/notable careers in their field(s). I've also known many who have had career success. I've known a few "late bloomers" as well, who all of a sudden got inspired but once inspired did become better students, whether in high school or college. I don't know of too many solid "C" students though, who were college faculty members, high-ups in their careers, physicians, and the like.
The only difference I saw is that the A-students were willing to work hard to get good grades, join clubs to make their college application look better, and their identities were tied to their grades. The C-students didn't want to put in the effort and just did the minimum. They also didn't attach their identity with their grades, so they weren't offended or hurt that they got Cs.
Your sports coaches did not provide tutoring for their team kids? Our sports had tutoring times for any athlete who was struggling. It was not necessarily their classroom teacher, but it might be another teacher in the same subject. Kids had to keep up their grades in order to play, so coaches did what they could to make sure their athletes passed.
My oldest had mandatory team study hall one football season. No teachers or tutors. It happened right before practice. The other three years they had nothing. The other kids/teams had nothing.
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.
