|
On June 06 2012 11:03 JitnikoVi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 10:52 politik wrote:On June 06 2012 07:53 zanzib wrote:On June 06 2012 07:43 killa_robot wrote:
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit. This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them). This is the best part about going to a small school. I got $20k in scholarships for getting the highest marks out of my grad class of 30 students  meanwhile, i took private school, summer school, nightschool, and also a full course load for 4 years of highschool (many students take spares in grade 11 and especially in grade 12), graduated with 6extra credits than was required (i believe you need 30 to graduate, which in this case i had 36) and for all this, all my hellish nights doing extra work, all the beautiful summer days i missed out studying inside, i earned $3500... i spent $2200 alone on just private school, and all the time i put into all these things as well... I applied for ~8 scholarships and got 1, 1 scholarship that i didnt even apply for manually but got put into automatically when i applied for OSAP (Queen Elizabeth The Second Scholarship) for the record, i also worked part time 20hours a week at mcdonalds, kept a steady girlfriend (to this day), and graduated as an ontario scholar with an 88% avg tl;dr, ontario (canadian?) scholarship programs are shit, work too hard for a minimal reward, regret not spending more time with friends, family during highschool years
I wonder how credits work in Canada because that's so odd compared to how it works here. For example, I entered university with 24 credits from high school due to AP courses. But you need like 225 credits to graduate, or something like that (maybe it's way less like 180, idk) on the quarter system...
To be fair though, Canadian education is dirt cheap, at least compared to the U.S. system. In retrospect, if you had truly as hellish of a schedule as you portray, you should have just taken out student loans! Although I can't possibly agree with you include "kept a steady girlfriend" as a time commitment. If anything, it shows you had a decent amount of free time, at the very least. Funny though considering from what it sounded like in this thread, Canadian marks mean nothing - it's pass/no pass, correct?
And I hope you know what I mean by time commitment... because I'm fully aware of how demanding and ridiculous women are....
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
On June 06 2012 11:09 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 11:03 JitnikoVi wrote:On June 06 2012 10:52 politik wrote:On June 06 2012 07:53 zanzib wrote:On June 06 2012 07:43 killa_robot wrote:
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit. This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them). This is the best part about going to a small school. I got $20k in scholarships for getting the highest marks out of my grad class of 30 students meanwhile, i took private school, summer school, nightschool, and also a full course load for 4 years of highschool (many students take spares in grade 11 and especially in grade 12), graduated with 6extra credits than was required (i believe you need 30 to graduate, which in this case i had 36) and for all this, all my hellish nights doing extra work, all the beautiful summer days i missed out studying inside, i earned $3500... i spent $2200 alone on just private school, and all the time i put into all these things as well... I applied for ~8 scholarships and got 1, 1 scholarship that i didnt even apply for manually but got put into automatically when i applied for OSAP (Queen Elizabeth The Second Scholarship) for the record, i also worked part time 20hours a week at mcdonalds, kept a steady girlfriend (to this day), and graduated as an ontario scholar with an 88% avg tl;dr, ontario (canadian?) scholarship programs are shit, work too hard for a minimal reward, regret not spending more time with friends, family during highschool years I wonder how credits work in Canada because that's so odd compared to how it works here. For example, I entered university with 24 credits from high school due to AP courses. But you need like 225 credits to graduate, or something like that (maybe it's way less like 180, idk) on the quarter system... To be fair though, Canadian education is dirt cheap, at least compared to the U.S. system. In retrospect, if you had truly as hellish of a schedule as you portray, you should have just taken out student loans! Although I can't possibly agree with you include "kept a steady girlfriend" as a time commitment. If anything, it shows you had a decent amount of free time, at the very least. Funny though considering from what it sounded like in this thread, Canadian marks mean nothing - it's pass/no pass, correct? And I hope you know what I mean by time commitment... because I'm fully aware of how demanding and ridiculous women are....
im going into my second year of university as a 19 year old, i spend 2 times a week with my girlfriend (this takes pretty much the entire day and is usually on a weekend and is exactly how it was in highschool)
high school was free for the most part for all years, and i do have student loans now that im in university (OSAP - $8000 in loans, $9000 in grants but that's entirely due to my current financial status and not to my grades), all my 'free time' was spent on either my girlfriend or my family, and even that wasn't a lot, i would see my friends sporadically outside of school, once every 2 weeks sometimes, other times once every 2 months
as for Canadian marks, grade 9/10 are completely useless, grade 11 is pretty useless as well, grade 12 goes straight to university so its important, for any good university you need around 85%+ to get into a decent program, in my high school the highest average was a 92% ... (i dont count social sciences or humanities as a 'decent program', if you like it and thats where your career is then okay, but its not a competitive program... ever)
|
On June 06 2012 07:53 zanzib wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 07:43 killa_robot wrote:
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit. This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them).
hahah, i laughed also.. it's exactly how i feel. if you're a female indigenous australian (aboriginal / torres strait islander) then you get buried in scholarships.
i remember enquiring about them before i started uni and the only one i was eligible for was if i got a perfect score from my final year highschool results. 20/20 for all 5 of your subjects.
good times.
edit: especially in engineering, as females are under-represented in engineering.
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
On June 06 2012 11:18 anycolourfloyd wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 07:53 zanzib wrote:On June 06 2012 07:43 killa_robot wrote:
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit. This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them). hahah, i laughed also.. it's exactly how i feel. if you're a female indigenous australian (aboriginal / torres strait islander) then you get buried in scholarships. i remember enquiring about them before i started uni and the only one i was eligible for was if i got a perfect score from my final year highschool results. 20/20 for all 5 of your subjects. good times.
this.
this is exactly how i felt.
|
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote:
As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
EDIT: Just noticed that B is appearently something else in USA compared to Sweden (in Sweden, B is the new MVG, which was the highest grade possible in the previous grading system).
EDIT2: And before all Swedes jump me saying A is the MVG, A is MVG+ (which previously didn't give any points, but A does).
I can only speak for American universities, but often in the Sciences (read: my entire undergrad) your only grades are test. All of my Biology, Chemistry, and Physics classes were ~4 scores, all tests. This is perfect for me, as I am very much like you. I have an incredible memory, do not need to study (reading a chapter once I can memorize it), and I'm quite lazy about class attendance and completing homework. I had a mid-low GPA in highschool, and a stellar GPA at a fairly tough university.
The real world rewards performance, not being a sheep.
|
On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote:
What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argumenting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page.
Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are.
|
On June 06 2012 11:43 Dekoth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote:
What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argumenting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page. Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are.
He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly.
If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out.
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
On June 06 2012 12:02 Heh_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 11:43 Dekoth wrote:On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote:
What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argu
menting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page. Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are. He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly. If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out.
i agree with both party's to a certain extent, there was a thread on teamliquid with an article attached to it saying how attractive people make 5-10% more than regular looking folk, and regular looking folk make 5-10% more than well, ugly people (something like that, the numbers maybe be off slightly). in addition, i have heard several times from several notable figures (lectures from profs) that with a bachelors degree it often doesnt matter what the major is in, the employers are simply looking to see that you have a bachelors to prove that you are hardworking, dedicated and so forth
however, the other side of this arguement is also very evident, in higher levels of education (masters, phd, etc) salary is without a doubt directly correlated to intelligence
your all correct. this arguement isnt black or white, its got some level of depth
|
On June 06 2012 12:42 JitnikoVi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 12:02 Heh_ wrote:On June 06 2012 11:43 Dekoth wrote:On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote:
What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argu
menting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page. Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are. He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly. If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out. i agree with both party's to a certain extent, there was a thread on teamliquid with an article attached to it saying how attractive people make 5-10% more than regular looking folk, and regular looking folk make 5-10% more than well, ugly people (something like that, the numbers maybe be off slightly). in addition, i have heard several times from several notable figures (lectures from profs) that with a bachelors degree it often doesnt matter what the major is in, the employers are simply looking to see that you have a bachelors to prove that you are hardworking, dedicated and so forth however, the other side of this arguement is also very evident, in higher levels of education (masters, phd, etc) salary is without a doubt directly correlated to intelligence your all correct. this arguement isnt black or white, its got some level of depth
I would say you'd have to put a pretty good argument with the masters. Why do you get a masters? Because you got accepted into the program. How do you get accepted? You got good grades as an undergrad, or you have good work experience from an entry level job, which you only got in the first place because you had good grades as well (or, if the economy is doing well, because you simply have a degree).
A masters program isn't really that hard and only takes 1-2 years to crank out. I don't understand why you'd say that a "masters salary" is directly correlated with intelligence. And by directly you probably mean just strongly, which I'm not even sure that is the case. You can get good grades in a masters program through sheer effort and dedication - which oh look, is once again a signal  .
I'm not sure what gray area you're even discussing though. Care to clarify?
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
On June 06 2012 12:53 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 12:42 JitnikoVi wrote:On June 06 2012 12:02 Heh_ wrote:On June 06 2012 11:43 Dekoth wrote:On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote:
What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argu
menting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page. Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are. He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly. If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out. i agree with both party's to a certain extent, there was a thread on teamliquid with an article attached to it saying how attractive people make 5-10% more than regular looking folk, and regular looking folk make 5-10% more than well, ugly people (something like that, the numbers maybe be off slightly). in addition, i have heard several times from several notable figures (lectures from profs) that with a bachelors degree it often doesnt matter what the major is in, the employers are simply looking to see that you have a bachelors to prove that you are hardworking, dedicated and so forth however, the other side of this arguement is also very evident, in higher levels of education (masters, phd, etc) salary is without a doubt directly correlated to intelligence your all correct. this arguement isnt black or white, its got some level of depth I would say you'd have to put a pretty good argument with the masters. Why do you get a masters? Because you got accepted into the program. How do you get accepted? You got good grades as an undergrad, or you have good work experience from an entry level job, which you only got in the first place because you had good grades as well (or, if the economy is doing well, because you simply have a degree). A masters program isn't really that hard and only takes 1-2 years to crank out. I don't understand why you'd say that a "masters salary" is directly correlated with intelligence. And by directly you probably mean just strongly, which I'm not even sure that is the case. You can get good grades in a masters program through sheer effort and dedication - which oh look, is once again a signal . I'm not sure what gray area you're even discussing though. Care to clarify?
theres people who work hard in their undergrad because they know they want to go into masters/something else, and then theres others who just want their bachelors and in turn dont put in as much effort, so thats pretty much all there is to say for your first paragraph
as for a masters program, i myself am not all too familiar with them to be honest, im assuming a masters in math or physics is much harder and probably ends with a higher salary than say a masters in something social science/humanities related?
its pretty clear i meant post grad (this is clear when i said "masters, phd, etc") and yet you mentioned the 'bottom tier' of that. essentially, the bottom line as others have stated, is that the smarter you are the more you get paid, which makes perfect sense to me, and is quite realistic as well
the 'gray area' is already as ive said, theres 2 sides to this story, intelligence of undergrad and below isnt completely relevant to your salary as much as intelligence is to further post grad education
i hope this clears it up for you
|
On June 06 2012 13:07 JitnikoVi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 12:53 FabledIntegral wrote:On June 06 2012 12:42 JitnikoVi wrote:On June 06 2012 12:02 Heh_ wrote:On June 06 2012 11:43 Dekoth wrote:On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote:
What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argu
menting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page. Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are. He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly. If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out. i agree with both party's to a certain extent, there was a thread on teamliquid with an article attached to it saying how attractive people make 5-10% more than regular looking folk, and regular looking folk make 5-10% more than well, ugly people (something like that, the numbers maybe be off slightly). in addition, i have heard several times from several notable figures (lectures from profs) that with a bachelors degree it often doesnt matter what the major is in, the employers are simply looking to see that you have a bachelors to prove that you are hardworking, dedicated and so forth however, the other side of this arguement is also very evident, in higher levels of education (masters, phd, etc) salary is without a doubt directly correlated to intelligence your all correct. this arguement isnt black or white, its got some level of depth I would say you'd have to put a pretty good argument with the masters. Why do you get a masters? Because you got accepted into the program. How do you get accepted? You got good grades as an undergrad, or you have good work experience from an entry level job, which you only got in the first place because you had good grades as well (or, if the economy is doing well, because you simply have a degree). A masters program isn't really that hard and only takes 1-2 years to crank out. I don't understand why you'd say that a "masters salary" is directly correlated with intelligence. And by directly you probably mean just strongly, which I'm not even sure that is the case. You can get good grades in a masters program through sheer effort and dedication - which oh look, is once again a signal . I'm not sure what gray area you're even discussing though. Care to clarify? theres people who work hard in their undergrad because they know they want to go into masters/something else, and then theres others who just want their bachelors and in turn dont put in as much effort, so thats pretty much all there is to say for your first paragraph as for a masters program, i myself am not all too familiar with them to be honest, im assuming a masters in math or physics is much harder and probably ends with a higher salary than say a masters in something social science/humanities related? its pretty clear i meant post grad (this is clear when i said "masters, phd, etc") and yet you mentioned the 'bottom tier' of that. essentially, the bottom line as others have stated, is that the smarter you are the more you get paid, which makes perfect sense to me, and is quite realistic as well the 'gray area' is already as ive said, theres 2 sides to this story, intelligence of undergrad and below isnt completely relevant to your salary as much as intelligence is to further post grad education i hope this clears it up for you
Exactly
1) There are those that work hard in their undergrad because they know they want to get their masters - signal.
2) There are those that don't put in as much effort - also a signal (in the form of lower grades due to less effort).
Concerning masters programs, yes this is true, but it's just as true for undergrad, there isn't much of a difference (social science undergrad easier than a hard sciences undergrad).
I know what you meant by post grad. There's a reason I didn't address the PhD part because I wasn't trying to contradict you. I'm sure it takes a decent amount of intelligence to get one. I wouldn't know though, I don't know anyone who's getting one. But also anyone who's going to get a PhD has to put in a substantial amount of effort to get one, regardless of their intelligence (unless you're one of those prodigy children).
Sure, you can say the smarter you are, the more you'll get paid. But that's because you used your intelligence to get good marks. No one wants to hire the intelligent worker than got straight C's, except for very niche industries/situations. Instead, people will hire the hard working B+/A- average student, even if they are less intelligent. Intelligence isn't relevant at all when getting the job really.
Almost no job interview will try to extensively analyze what they perceive to be your intelligence, with some exceptions once again, of course. Rather they typically test your ability to reason on the spot (I'd say this would be correlated with intelligence, but more so related to how you handle stressful situations), a few technical questions (most related to what you know, rather than intelligence), and a ton of behavior questions (with purpose to determine your work ethic).
The reason I questioned your gray area thing was because I don't think the topic that was being discussed prior was remotely related to that. Sure, you can say intelligence matters more at higher educations, but I think that statement was kinda out of the blue, unless I missed something...
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
On June 06 2012 13:23 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 13:07 JitnikoVi wrote:On June 06 2012 12:53 FabledIntegral wrote:On June 06 2012 12:42 JitnikoVi wrote:On June 06 2012 12:02 Heh_ wrote:On June 06 2012 11:43 Dekoth wrote:On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote:
What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argu
menting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page. Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are. He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly. If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out. i agree with both party's to a certain extent, there was a thread on teamliquid with an article attached to it saying how attractive people make 5-10% more than regular looking folk, and regular looking folk make 5-10% more than well, ugly people (something like that, the numbers maybe be off slightly). in addition, i have heard several times from several notable figures (lectures from profs) that with a bachelors degree it often doesnt matter what the major is in, the employers are simply looking to see that you have a bachelors to prove that you are hardworking, dedicated and so forth however, the other side of this arguement is also very evident, in higher levels of education (masters, phd, etc) salary is without a doubt directly correlated to intelligence your all correct. this arguement isnt black or white, its got some level of depth I would say you'd have to put a pretty good argument with the masters. Why do you get a masters? Because you got accepted into the program. How do you get accepted? You got good grades as an undergrad, or you have good work experience from an entry level job, which you only got in the first place because you had good grades as well (or, if the economy is doing well, because you simply have a degree). A masters program isn't really that hard and only takes 1-2 years to crank out. I don't understand why you'd say that a "masters salary" is directly correlated with intelligence. And by directly you probably mean just strongly, which I'm not even sure that is the case. You can get good grades in a masters program through sheer effort and dedication - which oh look, is once again a signal . I'm not sure what gray area you're even discussing though. Care to clarify? theres people who work hard in their undergrad because they know they want to go into masters/something else, and then theres others who just want their bachelors and in turn dont put in as much effort, so thats pretty much all there is to say for your first paragraph as for a masters program, i myself am not all too familiar with them to be honest, im assuming a masters in math or physics is much harder and probably ends with a higher salary than say a masters in something social science/humanities related? its pretty clear i meant post grad (this is clear when i said "masters, phd, etc") and yet you mentioned the 'bottom tier' of that. essentially, the bottom line as others have stated, is that the smarter you are the more you get paid, which makes perfect sense to me, and is quite realistic as well the 'gray area' is already as ive said, theres 2 sides to this story, intelligence of undergrad and below isnt completely relevant to your salary as much as intelligence is to further post grad education i hope this clears it up for you Exactly 1) There are those that work hard in their undergrad because they know they want to get their masters - signal. 2) There are those that don't put in as much effort - also a signal (in the form of lower grades due to less effort). Concerning masters programs, yes this is true, but it's just as true for undergrad, there isn't much of a difference (social science undergrad easier than a hard sciences undergrad). I know what you meant by post grad. There's a reason I didn't address the PhD part because I wasn't trying to contradict you. I'm sure it takes a decent amount of intelligence to get one. I wouldn't know though, I don't know anyone who's getting one. But also anyone who's going to get a PhD has to put in a substantial amount of effort to get one, regardless of their intelligence (unless you're one of those prodigy children). Sure, you can say the smarter you are, the more you'll get paid. But that's because you used your intelligence to get good marks. No one wants to hire the intelligent worker than got straight C's, except for very niche industries/situations. Instead, people will hire the hard working B+/A- average student, even if they are less intelligent. Intelligence isn't relevant at all when getting the job really. Almost no job interview will try to extensively analyze what they perceive to be your intelligence, with some exceptions once again, of course. Rather they typically test your ability to reason on the spot (I'd say this would be correlated with intelligence, but more so related to how you handle stressful situations), a few technical questions (most related to what you know, rather than intelligence), and a ton of behavior questions (with purpose to determine your work ethic). The reason I questioned your gray area thing was because I don't think the topic that was being discussed prior was remotely related to that. Sure, you can say intelligence matters more at higher educations, but I think that statement was kinda out of the blue, unless I missed something...
perhaps my comment was offtopic.. my english still isnt that good and i sometimes have trouble understanding text, so if i did just spur a topic completely unrelated i take the fault 
but since we've already started this, i do have to argue one point you make, and its that people getting their phd (or going med school, or law school etc) its not enough to be smart, and its not enough to be hardworking, you have to be a fair combination of the both
i shouldve mentioned that i assumed the 'intellect' will strive for excellence while the 'average joe' will not
|
I feel horrible for this generation and the education system as a whole.
|
On June 06 2012 13:31 JitnikoVi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 13:23 FabledIntegral wrote:On June 06 2012 13:07 JitnikoVi wrote:On June 06 2012 12:53 FabledIntegral wrote:On June 06 2012 12:42 JitnikoVi wrote:On June 06 2012 12:02 Heh_ wrote:On June 06 2012 11:43 Dekoth wrote:On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote:
What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argu
menting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page. Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are. He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly. If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out. i agree with both party's to a certain extent, there was a thread on teamliquid with an article attached to it saying how attractive people make 5-10% more than regular looking folk, and regular looking folk make 5-10% more than well, ugly people (something like that, the numbers maybe be off slightly). in addition, i have heard several times from several notable figures (lectures from profs) that with a bachelors degree it often doesnt matter what the major is in, the employers are simply looking to see that you have a bachelors to prove that you are hardworking, dedicated and so forth however, the other side of this arguement is also very evident, in higher levels of education (masters, phd, etc) salary is without a doubt directly correlated to intelligence your all correct. this arguement isnt black or white, its got some level of depth I would say you'd have to put a pretty good argument with the masters. Why do you get a masters? Because you got accepted into the program. How do you get accepted? You got good grades as an undergrad, or you have good work experience from an entry level job, which you only got in the first place because you had good grades as well (or, if the economy is doing well, because you simply have a degree). A masters program isn't really that hard and only takes 1-2 years to crank out. I don't understand why you'd say that a "masters salary" is directly correlated with intelligence. And by directly you probably mean just strongly, which I'm not even sure that is the case. You can get good grades in a masters program through sheer effort and dedication - which oh look, is once again a signal . I'm not sure what gray area you're even discussing though. Care to clarify? theres people who work hard in their undergrad because they know they want to go into masters/something else, and then theres others who just want their bachelors and in turn dont put in as much effort, so thats pretty much all there is to say for your first paragraph as for a masters program, i myself am not all too familiar with them to be honest, im assuming a masters in math or physics is much harder and probably ends with a higher salary than say a masters in something social science/humanities related? its pretty clear i meant post grad (this is clear when i said "masters, phd, etc") and yet you mentioned the 'bottom tier' of that. essentially, the bottom line as others have stated, is that the smarter you are the more you get paid, which makes perfect sense to me, and is quite realistic as well the 'gray area' is already as ive said, theres 2 sides to this story, intelligence of undergrad and below isnt completely relevant to your salary as much as intelligence is to further post grad education i hope this clears it up for you Exactly 1) There are those that work hard in their undergrad because they know they want to get their masters - signal. 2) There are those that don't put in as much effort - also a signal (in the form of lower grades due to less effort). Concerning masters programs, yes this is true, but it's just as true for undergrad, there isn't much of a difference (social science undergrad easier than a hard sciences undergrad). I know what you meant by post grad. There's a reason I didn't address the PhD part because I wasn't trying to contradict you. I'm sure it takes a decent amount of intelligence to get one. I wouldn't know though, I don't know anyone who's getting one. But also anyone who's going to get a PhD has to put in a substantial amount of effort to get one, regardless of their intelligence (unless you're one of those prodigy children). Sure, you can say the smarter you are, the more you'll get paid. But that's because you used your intelligence to get good marks. No one wants to hire the intelligent worker than got straight C's, except for very niche industries/situations. Instead, people will hire the hard working B+/A- average student, even if they are less intelligent. Intelligence isn't relevant at all when getting the job really. Almost no job interview will try to extensively analyze what they perceive to be your intelligence, with some exceptions once again, of course. Rather they typically test your ability to reason on the spot (I'd say this would be correlated with intelligence, but more so related to how you handle stressful situations), a few technical questions (most related to what you know, rather than intelligence), and a ton of behavior questions (with purpose to determine your work ethic). The reason I questioned your gray area thing was because I don't think the topic that was being discussed prior was remotely related to that. Sure, you can say intelligence matters more at higher educations, but I think that statement was kinda out of the blue, unless I missed something... perhaps my comment was offtopic.. my english still isnt that good and i sometimes have trouble understanding text, so if i did just spur a topic completely unrelated i take the fault but since we've already started this, i do have to argue one point you make, and its that people getting their phd (or going med school, or law school etc) its not enough to be smart, and its not enough to be hardworking, you have to be a fair combination of the both i shouldve mentioned that i assumed the 'intellect' will strive for excellence while the 'average joe' will not
Oh I'm not sure why you'd have to argue that point - I agree with you entirely .
|
On June 06 2012 11:16 JitnikoVi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 11:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On June 06 2012 11:03 JitnikoVi wrote:On June 06 2012 10:52 politik wrote:On June 06 2012 07:53 zanzib wrote:On June 06 2012 07:43 killa_robot wrote:
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit. This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them). This is the best part about going to a small school. I got $20k in scholarships for getting the highest marks out of my grad class of 30 students meanwhile, i took private school, summer school, nightschool, and also a full course load for 4 years of highschool (many students take spares in grade 11 and especially in grade 12), graduated with 6extra credits than was required (i believe you need 30 to graduate, which in this case i had 36) and for all this, all my hellish nights doing extra work, all the beautiful summer days i missed out studying inside, i earned $3500... i spent $2200 alone on just private school, and all the time i put into all these things as well... I applied for ~8 scholarships and got 1, 1 scholarship that i didnt even apply for manually but got put into automatically when i applied for OSAP (Queen Elizabeth The Second Scholarship) for the record, i also worked part time 20hours a week at mcdonalds, kept a steady girlfriend (to this day), and graduated as an ontario scholar with an 88% avg tl;dr, ontario (canadian?) scholarship programs are shit, work too hard for a minimal reward, regret not spending more time with friends, family during highschool years I wonder how credits work in Canada because that's so odd compared to how it works here. For example, I entered university with 24 credits from high school due to AP courses. But you need like 225 credits to graduate, or something like that (maybe it's way less like 180, idk) on the quarter system... To be fair though, Canadian education is dirt cheap, at least compared to the U.S. system. In retrospect, if you had truly as hellish of a schedule as you portray, you should have just taken out student loans! Although I can't possibly agree with you include "kept a steady girlfriend" as a time commitment. If anything, it shows you had a decent amount of free time, at the very least. Funny though considering from what it sounded like in this thread, Canadian marks mean nothing - it's pass/no pass, correct? And I hope you know what I mean by time commitment... because I'm fully aware of how demanding and ridiculous women are.... im going into my second year of university as a 19 year old, i spend 2 times a week with my girlfriend (this takes pretty much the entire day and is usually on a weekend and is exactly how it was in highschool) high school was free for the most part for all years, and i do have student loans now that im in university (OSAP - $8000 in loans, $9000 in grants but that's entirely due to my current financial status and not to my grades), all my 'free time' was spent on either my girlfriend or my family, and even that wasn't a lot, i would see my friends sporadically outside of school, once every 2 weeks sometimes, other times once every 2 months as for Canadian marks, grade 9/10 are completely useless, grade 11 is pretty useless as well, grade 12 goes straight to university so its important, for any good university you need around 85%+ to get into a decent program, in my high school the highest average was a 92% ... (i dont count social sciences or humanities as a 'decent program', if you like it and thats where your career is then okay, but its not a competitive program... ever)
Oh my god. Canadian high school is not that hard. I'm happy that you seem to have a good social life and everything but wow you worked a lot for not much reward man.
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
On June 06 2012 13:51 how2TL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 11:16 JitnikoVi wrote:On June 06 2012 11:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On June 06 2012 11:03 JitnikoVi wrote:On June 06 2012 10:52 politik wrote:On June 06 2012 07:53 zanzib wrote:On June 06 2012 07:43 killa_robot wrote:
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit. This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them). This is the best part about going to a small school. I got $20k in scholarships for getting the highest marks out of my grad class of 30 students meanwhile, i took private school, summer school, nightschool, and also a full course load for 4 years of highschool (many students take spares in grade 11 and especially in grade 12), graduated with 6extra credits than was required (i believe you need 30 to graduate, which in this case i had 36) and for all this, all my hellish nights doing extra work, all the beautiful summer days i missed out studying inside, i earned $3500... i spent $2200 alone on just private school, and all the time i put into all these things as well... I applied for ~8 scholarships and got 1, 1 scholarship that i didnt even apply for manually but got put into automatically when i applied for OSAP (Queen Elizabeth The Second Scholarship) for the record, i also worked part time 20hours a week at mcdonalds, kept a steady girlfriend (to this day), and graduated as an ontario scholar with an 88% avg tl;dr, ontario (canadian?) scholarship programs are shit, work too hard for a minimal reward, regret not spending more time with friends, family during highschool years I wonder how credits work in Canada because that's so odd compared to how it works here. For example, I entered university with 24 credits from high school due to AP courses. But you need like 225 credits to graduate, or something like that (maybe it's way less like 180, idk) on the quarter system... To be fair though, Canadian education is dirt cheap, at least compared to the U.S. system. In retrospect, if you had truly as hellish of a schedule as you portray, you should have just taken out student loans! Although I can't possibly agree with you include "kept a steady girlfriend" as a time commitment. If anything, it shows you had a decent amount of free time, at the very least. Funny though considering from what it sounded like in this thread, Canadian marks mean nothing - it's pass/no pass, correct? And I hope you know what I mean by time commitment... because I'm fully aware of how demanding and ridiculous women are.... im going into my second year of university as a 19 year old, i spend 2 times a week with my girlfriend (this takes pretty much the entire day and is usually on a weekend and is exactly how it was in highschool) high school was free for the most part for all years, and i do have student loans now that im in university (OSAP - $8000 in loans, $9000 in grants but that's entirely due to my current financial status and not to my grades), all my 'free time' was spent on either my girlfriend or my family, and even that wasn't a lot, i would see my friends sporadically outside of school, once every 2 weeks sometimes, other times once every 2 months as for Canadian marks, grade 9/10 are completely useless, grade 11 is pretty useless as well, grade 12 goes straight to university so its important, for any good university you need around 85%+ to get into a decent program, in my high school the highest average was a 92% ... (i dont count social sciences or humanities as a 'decent program', if you like it and thats where your career is then okay, but its not a competitive program... ever) Oh my god. Canadian high school is not that hard. I'm happy that you seem to have a good social life and everything but wow you worked a lot for not much reward man.
i agree with you entirely, its not hard at all, and i did overwork myself and i completely regret it
the one thing i will say, the jump from highschool to university is very steep in terms of difficulty, and doing all those extra courses did pay off for my 'learning discipline', other than that, it was all essentially useless imo
|
There are obviously two appropriate answers here. A practical and philosophical one.
Practically, this was the wrong move. He had a job to think of, and if that meant not giving 0s, then he messed up.
Philosophically, he made the right call. Really, 0s are a great reminder to stop being a lazy ass and get your work done, or they were for me at least.
|
So.... is there just no such thing as a zero? Does that mark simply not exist? How pathetic.
|
I just want to say something that I noticed in this thread. The people who don't think homework should be graded are referring to busy work: those bullshit worksheets which are supposed to "reinforce what you were taught". If you already get it, these SERVE NO PURPOSE, besides padding out the grades of those who don't get it and just copy blindly off their friend. However, essays and projects and homework that actually requires intelligent thought and applications of the material is important. For example, you want to know how to improve at writing, it's not mostly talent, nor is it about what classes you took, it is about how much you wrote and read. You want to get better, read a well respected author, write something of your own, and so on.
Even creativity and improvisation can be practiced. Just keep doing it and trying and playing around with the concepts and you will improve. Also, if you hate your job, you have the wrong job. If you hate the people associated with you job, just tell them politely how you feel, or get a therapist.
|
On June 06 2012 14:22 slimcognito2012 wrote:
I just want to say something that I noticed in this thread. The people who don't think homework should be graded are referring to busy work: those bullshit worksheets which are supposed to "reinforce what you were taught". If you already get it, these SERVE NO PURPOSE, besides padding out the grades of those who don't get it and just copy blindly off their friend. However, essays and projects and homework that actually requires intelligent thought and applications of the material is important. For example, you want to know how to improve at writing, it's not mostly talent, nor is it about what classes you took, it is about how much you wrote and read. You want to get better, read a well respected author, write something of your own, and so on.
Even creativity and improvisation can be practiced. Just keep doing it and trying and playing around with the concepts and you will improve. Also, if you hate your job, you have the wrong job. If you hate the people associated with you job, just tell them politely how you feel, or get a therapist.
You didn't really state anything new. Both sides of the argument knew it was referring to busy work a lot of the time. Hence the work ethic discussion in the first place, as well as signaling discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
