So... I go to a well known college and I major in physics. Challenging yes. A pain yes. Interesting yes. Sad. yes.
My grades amaze me. Clearly a C+ reflects above average in one of my classes. There is absolutely no grade inflation, and grad school may or may not understand how this professor grades. Because I did below average on the 1st midterm and then way above average on the 2nd midterm (which averages out to average). I don't know how I did on the final, but my answers seem to match what Mrs.-high-scorer wrote on her test, so I was naturally expecting above average. Maybe unfortunately, he sets his average to a straight C--That's my only guess. The grade distribution wasn't set on view, so I don't know for sure (so maybe sexist grading?). But I can't say I am pissed. I just feel bad. If I did above average and only got a C+, and a D is failing, then I am sorry for those blokes in the lower bracket. AND I MEAN SORRY! The new average should be set to a B (seriously) because a commendable C+ is way to close to a failing D with a narrower average bracket. Trying harder than I ever did and merely getting a C+ is seriously depressing me. I know I didn't study the "wrong" way either. I seriously revised my studying method from the 1st test by doing problems and was rewarded by doing much better than average. I did the same to the 3rd degree for the final and only got a C+!!!! Optimism would lead me to think this grade was 1) a mistake that will be checked over before submitted or 2) will be curved in the end and isn't really the final-"final" grade but was merely the averaged/ raw final grade. It isn't impossible, but it is surely optimistic. BUT I don't want any more of this optimism. Optimism is a mindset for failure for me, but at the same time having my mind constantly meander around the subject of my bad grades is unhealthy and depressing. It may even set me up for worse grades in the future.
START READING HERE IF YOU WANT SOMETHING RELATABLE
subject: PROBLEM OF CHOOSING A MAJOR.
I really like physics, but being judged on the subject by how well I perform on it is very disheartening because I only recently discovered very few of its deeper truths, and grades are pushing me away from even wanting to explore more of this very deep subject. I think you as a college student should think long and hard about the subject matter that they will delve into it because as a college student you are going to be judged on a major you picked as your own/ part of yourself. At the same time, your professor may help you delve into deep topic with you because the subject is inherently interesting to you and to them, but in the end, the grade is all that is going to matter. Your grade is your key to a deeper understanding of a material in say graduate school, and it can be a limiting factor when it comes to job opportunities, and all colleges grade differently. In a sense, you (having been or as a college student) paid to be graded.
FEYNMAN and EINSTEIN and ELITE SCHOOLS, CONFORMITY
In my opinion, the best college illuminates the ignorant sea better than the sun does shine through the cracks in the clouds. It also is at the forefront of risk and discovery, and its people reflect that.
An acquaintance of mine at high school was a physics genius. He got great physics and math grades/ AP test scores and could correct a math professor and an Astronomy T.A if they were ever wrong because he knew the specifics of everything. He's the kind of guy you want to see in MIT, even if you are his competitor, but he didn't make it in. Instead, some other college in California will benefit from his great and unique perspective, while MIT missed out. Like Feynman and Columbia. Take this to heart, grades are another person's judgement of your self worth and will live with you through an intellectual career. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant. Why else does a college use your grades and rank you while giving you a verdict on whether you are worthy enough to attend? But don't take it to yourself that it is your worth. A professor of Feynman remarked that he was of merely respectable intelligence. Also, Feynman didn't get accepted to Columbia. But the institution and the professor were wrong. Columbia was probably regretting the fame and influence that could've came with having educated a great man. Feynman moved on to MIT instead, then to Princeton for grad school, and then to Caltech where he delivered his famous physics lectures while making advancements in quantum. He lived an enormously productive, fun, and creative life that turned into a biography, and he is well respected in (what should be) all physics departments. There's a man who ultimately didn't give up in himself despite the circumstances.
Einstein also strikes me as the type of person who would fail Harvard. He got top marks in physics and math, but maybe not the highest in english or other subjects; unfortunately, institutions are very unforgiving about imperfections. He failed the Swiss Polytechnic in Zurich, and later in college, he lived off his friends notes. Because his professor noticed this, he was later refused a position at the college, and ended up in the patent's office instead. It amazes me how many failures a eccentric runs into before becoming someone known to the world, but in a sense, a college needs rebels and eccentrics- someone who isn't good at everything, but really good at 1 or 2 things. College should be the ultimate market place of ideas with the most diversity. Conformity is wrong.
Harvard has the appearance of a good school because its student body are good students. A good school is worthy of its name because it can take any group of students and turn them into intellectuals with overflowing perspectives and curiosity. But how can we call Harvard a good college when it accepts only the good students? Also, Harvard doesn't know to accept brilliant people and give them, rightfully, research grants, education, mentors, and other resources. As mentioned before, Harvard wouldn't have accepted Einstein because they accept perfectionists. The students are complacent with where they are, and maybe even a little arrogant about it. Humility is important in the sciences in order to accept an idea that is proven right from maybe even a state college. However, some students remain ecstatic about their acceptance or accept to themselves that they have made it to the pinnacle of society.
The perfectionist quality of all Harvard's students is a point of conformity. This quality might also lead into other qualities such as mental state, stability, income level, race, conservatism, and docility.
Also, at this point in society, Harvard's education has been taken too seriously such that our nation's leaders are without the greatest perspectives. Exactly how many Harvard Law school presidents have we had?
