xkcd

by **Rinsaikeru** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:10 pm UTC

I tend to chalk that up to different skill sets:

The skill set that makes you an effective social being is obviously not the same one that lets you easily breeze through highschool classes? That or it's male posturing minus the jock-strap.

by **godonlyknows620** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:30 pm UTC

I get what you mean, but it's not all the "naturally smart, but underacheiving" people who behave that way. Just a certain, louder, bunch.

If I had a penny for everytime I've heard: "If I just studied a little I could definitely get A+'s."...well, I wouldn't be worried about my tuition fees.

My friend and I have a theory that these specimens are scared of ever proving their own theory: scared of trying to study hard to succeed, and not doing so. This would make them- gasp!- mere mortals, as fallible as everybody else.

Again, this probably doesn't apply to most of the posters here, just certain people that I have personally seen.

by **Adacore** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:41 pm UTC

Hmm, as I said, I didn't have to study to achieve until uni. Once I started studying my grades went from mediocre to excellent. The reason for the mediocre in the first place was that I was never effectively taught that'd I'd have to study when I was in school.

I was never condescending about it though. I was always really shy about my grades when I got good marks. For a long time I did think that the people who had to work hard to achieve the same thing I did without work were somehow 'worse' than me, but I've completely changed that opinion now - I think they are, if anything, 'better' more useful people for society. Most useful work doesn't require you to be really bright, but it does require you to actually get down and do the work.

by **diotimajsh** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:37 am UTC

godonlyknows620 wrote:My friend and I have a theory that these specimens are scared of ever proving their own theory: scared of trying to study hard to succeed, and not doing so. This would make them- gasp!- mere mortals, as fallible as everybody else.

That wouldn't surprise me at all. I think I've been guilty of those thoughts to some degree myself.

by **Magic Smoothie** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:18 am UTC

I have never been challenged throughout school in spite of being in numerous gifted programs, and though I am almost never satisfied with anything below a 95 on tests, I consistently bring home C's or lower. XPP Of course, my parents then compare me to my 4.2 GPA older sister... who hasn't made a new friend in nine years and spends all her time doing homework, working on her school's newspaper, or BAWWing about her six AP classes. They almost completely overlook how dedicated I am to singing and acting or how well I do in Science Olympiad.

It's not that I don't want good grades, though. I just can't find a way to get myself to do dull work (except in my French class, because I have a great teacher.)

Godd isn't it idiotic when your teachers give you a test which is supposed to check if you've learned the material and then specifically tell you to use notes, or even GRADE said notes more heavily than the tests? School doesn't seem to test intelligence or even knowledge at all these days; it's more like seeing how well you can jump through hoops and conform. <_<

Dimetrodon wrote:I had a lot of my own feelings validated by this article: http://www.geocities.com/josh_shaine/insideout.html. I think it's relevant enough to be worth posting.

Almost exactly the same here.

by **thatguy** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:55 am UTC

I'm the kid that just intuitively gets stuff and never really bothers to study.

Example: In a College Bio class, our teacher (who basically forced everyone to teach themselves -- but I digress) insisted that everyone make "cheat sheets" for a test (on respiration I believe).

I refused, wrote "Don't Panic" in large, friendly letters on my sheet of paper, and proceeded to screw up the curve for everyone.

by **Jorpho** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:36 am UTC

Here's the big question in my mind: if one really doesn't think that all the studying and busywork is worth one's time, what makes all the things one might want to do otherwise so much more demonstrably worth one's time? Is it because they bring happiness, to the degree that disregarding one's obligations and not meeting the expectation's of one's elders is of no concern?

thatguy wrote:Example: In a College Bio class, our teacher (who basically forced everyone to teach themselves -- but I digress) insisted that everyone make "cheat sheets" for a test (on respiration I believe).

I refused, wrote "Don't Panic" in large, friendly letters on my sheet of paper, and proceeded to screw up the curve for everyone.

Odd. What is there to "get" about respiration? You either know about the trachea and alveoli and pleura and whatnot, or you don't, no?

by **Rinsaikeru** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:44 pm UTC

I dunno--grading notes and homework is more fair to my mind because the only thing a test can measure is how well you take tests.

Each category is a skill set. Do you keep good records? Do you complete assigned tasks? Do you have short term memory?

by **Magic Smoothie** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:55 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:I dunno--grading notes and homework is more fair to my mind because the only thing a test can measure is how well you take tests.

Yes; being able to copy information out of a book is a very useful skill. Even so; I kind of see your point since most students cram for tests but don't remember the material later. I think teachers should give random pop quizzes on major points from previous units throughout the year.

by **godonlyknows620** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:27 pm UTC

Magic Smoothie wrote:School doesn't seem to test intelligence or even knowledge at all these days; it's more like seeing how well you can jump through hoops and conform. <_<

Oh, don't even get me started. I can't think of a better way to rephrase that sentence.

I have this one math teacher who constantly insinuates that she's one of the best at our school, as if its a fact or something. Yet she treats us like elementary schoolers by checking homework every day (???) and, her logic is that the more steps it takes to do the problem, the better you understand the subject. She doesn't seem to understand the beauty of a more streamlined, simple approach. Grrr.

But yeah. I have to say, just about everyone here who says that they don't need to work as hard as others in their class, they accept that this is a fault of the system in which they are being taught. I haven't gotten the vibe from anyone here that just because they didn't do squat for their little quiz on the Civil War and managed to get an A, they think they are General Sherman Incarnate. Which, sadly, is the case for certain children in my sorry school.

by **Rinsaikeru** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:48 am UTC

The real problem is that in the same class you have a few who don't need to study, several people who need to study a little, lots of people who need to study lots, and a few that don't care at all. The result is that the teacher cannot teach to each segment and therefore goes for the kids who will benefit most from the help.

by **TheYango** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:15 pm UTC

Magic Smoothie wrote:Godd isn't it idiotic when your teachers give you a test which is supposed to check if you've learned the material and then specifically tell you to use notes, or even GRADE said notes more heavily than the tests? School doesn't seem to test intelligence or even knowledge at all these days; it's more like seeing how well you can jump through hoops and conform. <_<

I can see the rest of your argument, but I actually think this is a poor example. Once you get into the working world, being able to compact a large amount of information into a readable, accessible reference for other people is a far more useful skill than being able to memorize it for yourself.

The way I see it is this: yes, schoolwork is a lot of busy work. So are a lot of jobs. The better you learn to deal with it in high school, the less painful it is when you're doing it on a daily basis and getting paid for it.

by **thatguy** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:37 pm UTC

Jorpho wrote:Here's the big question in my mind: if one really doesn't think that all the studying and busywork is worth one's time, what makes all the things one might want to do otherwise so much more demonstrably worth one's time? Is it because they bring happiness, to the degree that disregarding one's obligations and not meeting the expectation's of one's elders is of no concern?

thatguy wrote:Example: In a College Bio class, our teacher (who basically forced everyone to teach themselves -- but I digress) insisted that everyone make "cheat sheets" for a test (on respiration I believe).

I refused, wrote "Don't Panic" in large, friendly letters on my sheet of paper, and proceeded to screw up the curve for everyone.
Odd. What is there to "get" about respiration? You either know about the trachea and alveoli and pleura and whatnot, or you don't, no?

It was cellular respiration. Like, simple sugars -> ATP. I'm pretty sure that's respiration, I'm a bit fuzzy, it's been a while.

by **solitarysock** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:11 am UTC

I know that problem. I belong, too, to the "smartish" people, who never learned to have any kind of work ethic. For most subjects, I wouldn't learn -- at most, I would have a look at the book shortly before the test. I did just fine, usually.

I was severely underchallenged in maths (teacher focused on students who didn't understand maths. They loved him. I hated him). I usually did the most difficult two or three exercises on the worksheet (the "extra credit" ones), and if I had no problems with them, I could be sure that I knew the subject. Why, then, should I also solve and write down ten more, easier, exercises, except for utter boredom? Do those of you who think you should be graded only upon effort think that I should get a worse grade for understanding concepts faster? (this was just work in class, not anything like graded homework) Shouldn't I be allowed more difficult exercises instead of having to stare out of the window or read an unrelated book? (which the teacher told me to do...)

The people who worked hard for their grades envied me for not having to do the work, and I envied them for being able to actually do work if they have to.

Now, I'm in my third year at university, and I still have no work ethic, don't read up things, don't go through my notes again, don't do most homework. I'm at a loss as to how to prepare for an exam, and it's always stressy because I only start doing so one or two days in advance. I don't know what to do to get me to work. I just stare at my computer endlessly and do nothing useful all day long.
I might be happier if I had belonged to the people who had to work for good grades... that is, been motivated by being challenged.

Good schools should do just that, but there just aren't any really good schools around. The only thing they ever did was make me skip grades, which ended up with me being just as bored (in most subjects (e.g. history) you don't really need to know the previous years' material anyway) but several years younger than my fellows. That system with AP classes etc. that I hear about from US residents sounds like heaven to me

Classes with 35 students are quite common around here, and after a certain point, teachers can no longer be fired, so they don't need to be good anymore, either... most teachers just didn't care how the class was doing, except that the average should get a passing grade. Some didn't even learn names.
There were a few exceptions, of course. I loved my physics teacher from 12th and 13th grade. I could discuss further questions with him during the break, and while he did take into account the slower learners, he never repeated the same thing over and over again. But the only other such teacher that I remember right now is my first grade teacher, who would give extra work to pupils who already knew letters and numbers... So, two teachers in 11 years, at five different schools (we moved a lot). Wow.

by **Jorpho** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:01 am UTC

thatguy wrote:
Jorpho wrote:Odd. What is there to "get" about respiration? You either know about the trachea and alveoli and pleura and whatnot, or you don't, no?

It was cellular respiration. Like, simple sugars -> ATP. I'm pretty sure that's respiration, I'm a bit fuzzy, it's been a while.

I thought that was metabolism. The horror stories about the numbing dullness of committing the entire metabolic pathway to memory as part of a biology course was one of the major reasons I felt confident in avoiding biology in my studies. (Of course, I did have to memorize the periodic table instead - but fortunately that only happened once.)

by **Magic Smoothie** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:21 am UTC

TheYango wrote:
Magic Smoothie wrote:Godd isn't it idiotic when your teachers give you a test which is supposed to check if you've learned the material and then specifically tell you to use notes, or even GRADE said notes more heavily than the tests? School doesn't seem to test intelligence or even knowledge at all these days; it's more like seeing how well you can jump through hoops and conform. <_<

I can see the rest of your argument, but I actually think this is a poor example. Once you get into the working world, being able to compact a large amount of information into a readable, accessible reference for other people is a far more useful skill than being able to memorize it for yourself.

The way I see it is this: yes, schoolwork is a lot of busy work. So are a lot of jobs. The better you learn to deal with it in high school, the less painful it is when you're doing it on a daily basis and getting paid for it.

Perhaps; but doesn't this lead one into the thought that our teachers either A) Have no idea what they are doing, or B) are lying about the purposes of the assignments? This isn't what the class is told the test is for. Even when prompted by five different students as to the point or reason for a lesson or the way it's taught, they're not usually given an answer. A lot of my teachers' reasons for doing this seem to be to get good grades for the students, at the expense of learning, which is also usually their apparent reason for busy work. ";D It's an easy twenty points! Just answer ten identical questions about capitalization." (An actual assignment given by my 9th grade English teacher.)

by **Rinsaikeru** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:14 pm UTC

Well there are reasons for that style of teaching. Unfortunately in some of the world the government determines school funding based on test scores (usually standardized test scores). Either by publishing the results of standardized testing and letting parents 'decide' what school to send their child to (and thereby determining where their tax dollars go) or by not funding those schools which have lower scores. (Though really...shouldn't those schools get MORE money?).

If there are standardized tests--teachers will teach to the test. Having students succeed is important if grades are the goal--which is usually what is going on.

On top of that there are lots of lazy people out there...some of them are teachers.

by **godonlyknows620** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:24 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:If there are standardized tests--teachers will teach to the test. Having students succeed is important if grades are the goal--which is usually what is going on.

Yeah, that's definitely a huge problem. Many of these tests emphasize Mathematics, Reading, and Writing skills, so that's what schools focus on...and Science, History, and so many other subjects are left behind =[. Especially in the elementary schools and junior high schools, I found our science and history programs to be severely lacking, most of the time the teacher would give us worksheets based off of slides of a PowerPoint for us to copy the answers off of and then use the exact same bullets for their quizzes/tests.

The result of this is that I improved my shorthand and I have very neat penmanship now, but I don't suppose that was the intention =P.

by **achan1058** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:56 pm UTC

There is a few things that interests me. Of the people who claim that they are smart and did little work, is it necessary true that they did little work? For example, I completely aced my algorithms final in my undergrad with like 0 hour studying and < 2 hour preparing for the formula sheet. (we are allowed a formula sheet) On the surface, I did no work. On the other hand, on that year and the year before, I was practicing and competing for an algorithms contest, putting in as much as 15 hours/week, which certainly qualifies as a lot of work, even if it is not for that class. It's the same thing if you are looking at random math textbooks or more difficult subjects in wikipedia. While it might not be work as in studying for your class, it still qualifies work. (even if you enjoy it and don't see it as such)

Also, I think both hard work and smartness are important, I have seen too many solutions while grading that tells me that the guy is smart, but is not putting enough effort in writing up and checking solutions, and ones that have worked hard, but is missing the point. In both cases, I take off marks. I see no excuse for not working hard even if you are smart. So if you are 1 of those people, stay away from the courses that I am TAing. (I have also seen ones which are poor in both senses, but let's not get there.)

As for myself, I believe that I have some ability (I can usually see the solutions to problems quickly, and/or coming up with the right counterexample), but I still put in a decent number of hours, usually checking what I have written up is actually correct and understandable. I must say that I don't like it very much, but I put up with it and do it. (and probably also because what I have written down is often incorrect, due to some stupid typos here and there)

Anyways, I would slightly prefer hard working people over smart people, on some sort of a non-linear scale, but what I really prefer are people who are both, except when they are in the same class that you are. If only more people are like that instead of debating whether hard work or smartness is more important...... (people who are really smart, hard working, and motivated do exist, and it's rather scary having 1 of those in your class)

P.S. To those who are saying they are only getting a C because they are smart but lack work ethic, I strongly disagree on you calling yourself smart, unless you are some super genius which can do the hardest contest/research and is disinterested in everything else. Those people are generally very easy to identify as well, as they always get A+'s on the hard courses that they are interested in, and by hard, I mean graduate school level minimum.

by **Izawwlgood** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:01 pm UTC

I didn't work very hard and got mostly C's and B's. That makes me pretty dumb, even if I could pass a class with minimal effort and led study sessions.

by **achan1058** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I didn't work very hard and got mostly C's and B's. That makes me pretty dumb, even if I could pass a class with minimal effort and led study sessions.

I would not want to be in any study sessions you are leading, as I cannot be sure whether your information is correct. If you are really smart, there's no reason for you not to get an A, at least in the area I am studying. (mathematics) There aren't all that much busy work (other than proof reading your solutions, which is something you should really do), but usually just a set of nasty questions whenever the prof feels like it. I have had busy work in the past, though, and I did put up with it, at least in my undergrad years. (I was more like the lazy bunch for much of my high school years, but I changed for the better, maybe because of my desire to beat every other student in my class during my grade 11 and 12 year.)

by **solitarysock** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:07 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote:P.S. To those who are saying they are only getting a C because they are smart but lack work ethic, I strongly disagree on you calling yourself smart, unless you are some super genius which can do the hardest contest/research and is disinterested in everything else. Those people are generally very easy to identify as well, as they always get A+'s on the hard courses that they are interested in, and by hard, I mean graduate school level minimum.

There weren't any, really. If I was somewhat interested in a subject, I easily got an A or A+ average (maths, languages), but most stuff was quite boring, or graded upon the teachers' personal preferences for some students...
Also, I don't complain about not getting good marks if I don't put in any effort. That's a logical consequence. I just think that school should have been teaching me to actually put in some effort.

Edited for style...

by **Jorpho** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:31 pm UTC

solitarysock wrote:Also, I don't complain about not getting good marks if I don't put in any effort. That's a logical consequence. I just think that school should have been teaching me to actually put in some effort.

...Perhaps by giving you bad grades?

by **She** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:36 pm UTC

solitarysock wrote:I know that problem. I belong, too, to the "smartish" people, who never learned to have any kind of work ethic. For most subjects, I wouldn't learn -- at most, I would have a look at the book shortly before the test. I did just fine, usually.

I was severely underchallenged in maths (teacher focused on students who didn't understand maths. They loved him. I hated him). I usually did the most difficult two or three exercises on the worksheet (the "extra credit" ones), and if I had no problems with them, I could be sure that I knew the subject. Why, then, should I also solve and write down ten more, easier, exercises, except for utter boredom? Do those of you who think you should be graded only upon effort think that I should get a worse grade for understanding concepts faster? (this was just work in class, not anything like graded homework) Shouldn't I be allowed more difficult exercises instead of having to stare out of the window or read an unrelated book? (which the teacher told me to do...)

The people who worked hard for their grades envied me for not having to do the work, and I envied them for being able to actually do work if they have to.

Now, I'm in my third year at university, and I still have no work ethic, don't read up things, don't go through my notes again, don't do most homework. I'm at a loss as to how to prepare for an exam, and it's always stressy because I only start doing so one or two days in advance. I don't know what to do to get me to work. I just stare at my computer endlessly and do nothing useful all day long.
I might be happier if I had belonged to the people who had to work for good grades... that is, been motivated by being challenged.

Oh my god. This could so be me in four years. I have nothing to add.

by **Ralith The Third** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:26 am UTC

She wrote:
solitarysock wrote:I know that problem. I belong, too, to the "smartish" people, who never learned to have any kind of work ethic. For most subjects, I wouldn't learn -- at most, I would have a look at the book shortly before the test. I did just fine, usually.

I was severely underchallenged in maths (teacher focused on students who didn't understand maths. They loved him. I hated him). I usually did the most difficult two or three exercises on the worksheet (the "extra credit" ones), and if I had no problems with them, I could be sure that I knew the subject. Why, then, should I also solve and write down ten more, easier, exercises, except for utter boredom? Do those of you who think you should be graded only upon effort think that I should get a worse grade for understanding concepts faster? (this was just work in class, not anything like graded homework) Shouldn't I be allowed more difficult exercises instead of having to stare out of the window or read an unrelated book? (which the teacher told me to do...)

The people who worked hard for their grades envied me for not having to do the work, and I envied them for being able to actually do work if they have to.

Now, I'm in my third year at university, and I still have no work ethic, don't read up things, don't go through my notes again, don't do most homework. I'm at a loss as to how to prepare for an exam, and it's always stressy because I only start doing so one or two days in advance. I don't know what to do to get me to work. I just stare at my computer endlessly and do nothing useful all day long.
I might be happier if I had belonged to the people who had to work for good grades... that is, been motivated by being challenged.

Oh my god. This could so be me in four years. I have nothing to add.

It's not quite that bad for me anymore, at least in math, but in science... Well, my science teacher thinks Radar uses sound waves. Which is like.. really, flippin sad.

by **achan1058** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:40 am UTC

Ralith The Third wrote:It's not quite that bad for me anymore, at least in math, but in science... Well, my science teacher thinks Radar uses sound waves. Which is like.. really, flippin sad.

I would find some heavy duty source (like a very thick textbook) and refute her, and perhaps try to get her fired.

by **Ralith The Third** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:47 am UTC

achan1058 wrote:
Ralith The Third wrote:It's not quite that bad for me anymore, at least in math, but in science... Well, my science teacher thinks Radar uses sound waves. Which is like.. really, flippin sad.
I would find some heavy duty source (like a very thick textbook) and refute her, and perhaps try to get her fired.

Him. He's not MEAN about it, and he will admit that I'm right if I am, or tell me I'm wrong if he looks it up and it's so, but...

by **achan1058** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:51 am UTC

Hm, how did I pick up that "her"? Must have been some other teacher I was reading in another post.

by **thatguy** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:38 am UTC

Jorpho wrote:
thatguy wrote:
Jorpho wrote:Odd. What is there to "get" about respiration? You either know about the trachea and alveoli and pleura and whatnot, or you don't, no?

It was cellular respiration. Like, simple sugars -> ATP. I'm pretty sure that's respiration, I'm a bit fuzzy, it's been a while.
I thought that was metabolism. The horror stories about the numbing dullness of committing the entire metabolic pathway to memory as part of a biology course was one of the major reasons I felt confident in avoiding biology in my studies. (Of course, I did have to memorize the periodic table instead - but fortunately that only happened once.)

Touche, sir.

by **Alpha Omicron** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:41 pm UTC

She wrote:
solitarysock wrote:I know that problem. I belong, too, to the "smartish" people, who never learned to have any kind of work ethic. For most subjects, I wouldn't learn -- at most, I would have a look at the book shortly before the test. I did just fine, usually.

I was severely underchallenged in maths (teacher focused on students who didn't understand maths. They loved him. I hated him). I usually did the most difficult two or three exercises on the worksheet (the "extra credit" ones), and if I had no problems with them, I could be sure that I knew the subject. Why, then, should I also solve and write down ten more, easier, exercises, except for utter boredom? Do those of you who think you should be graded only upon effort think that I should get a worse grade for understanding concepts faster? (this was just work in class, not anything like graded homework) Shouldn't I be allowed more difficult exercises instead of having to stare out of the window or read an unrelated book? (which the teacher told me to do...)

The people who worked hard for their grades envied me for not having to do the work, and I envied them for being able to actually do work if they have to.

Now, I'm in my third year at university, and I still have no work ethic, don't read up things, don't go through my notes again, don't do most homework. I'm at a loss as to how to prepare for an exam, and it's always stressy because I only start doing so one or two days in advance. I don't know what to do to get me to work. I just stare at my computer endlessly and do nothing useful all day long.
I might be happier if I had belonged to the people who had to work for good grades... that is, been motivated by being challenged.

Oh my god. This could so be me in four years. I have nothing to add.

Replace third year with first year and it's me.

by **Rinsaikeru** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:21 pm UTC

I understand that it's frustrating to be underchallenged--but the current school system doesn't spilt people up based on their work style.

Perhaps it should--though then you'd have tiered education that certainly has preferential treatment to certain socio-economic backgrounds (because these kids often do very well in institutional school settings and because they have more support at home).

But for as many bored smart students as there are--I think there are an equal amount who would actually benefit from working through things they are relatively sure they understand.

by **PieceofPi** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:36 pm UTC

I am one of those people who just breezes through schoolwork. I get ~90% most of the time without studying. However, one way that I've found to overcome the "no work ethic" is to instead follow the questions until they become hard.
I.e.
We had a math question - count the triangles*. She meant only the 1x1 triangles, but I decided to include all of the possible triangles. Turns out I found out how to get a quadtatic equation out of a table of values. (It was 7th grade.)

*like this:
____A____
__A_ _A__
A__ A __A
...
adding one layer each time
(ignore the '_'s)
This would be 13, by the way.

Edit: Oops, formatting problem.

by **bbq** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:38 pm UTC

I would get A*s and stuff on tests and coursework, if I actually tried.

Well, I don't try, and I get A*s, so it logically follows...

I suck at deadlines though. No work ethic at all.

by **Angua** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:48 pm UTC

thatguy wrote:
Jorpho wrote:
thatguy wrote:
Jorpho wrote:Odd. What is there to "get" about respiration? You either know about the trachea and alveoli and pleura and whatnot, or you don't, no?

It was cellular respiration. Like, simple sugars -> ATP. I'm pretty sure that's respiration, I'm a bit fuzzy, it's been a while.
I thought that was metabolism. The horror stories about the numbing dullness of committing the entire metabolic pathway to memory as part of a biology course was one of the major reasons I felt confident in avoiding biology in my studies. (Of course, I did have to memorize the periodic table instead - but fortunately that only happened once.)

Touche, sir.

Actually, metabolism is all biological reactions, respiration is the reactions for gaining ATP (so also a metabolic reaction) and gaseous exchange is the trachea and whatnot. [/nitpick]

I manage to get things quickly and didn't have to study much, and would consequently feel guilty about not studying as hard as my other friends until it was pointed out to me that the fact that I did all my homework well and actually asked for help if I need it meant that I was in fact studying through-out the year. I know that I am lucky that I am a freak who ~~enjoys~~ (well, too strong a word) gets some satisfaction from finishing my homework, and can actually remember stuff after we've learnt it, only having to study for stuff at the beginning of the year with a quick review of the material.

by **Chen** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:25 pm UTC

So why are all the smart people with no work ethic, not trying to improve said work ethic? In life work is not always going to be interesting or fun (I'd probably say a lot of it won't be). Just because school work and studying is boring, doesn't mean it cannot help you. Someone had said something about doing only the extra credit math problems and leaving the other easier ones because its just boring. Well why not try to find a better way to solve them? Try to find some other trickses to make things even faster to do? Teachers cannot teach to the top end of the class because those at the middle or bottom would get left behind. In the current system people who have the easy time with the subject matter need to find ways to motivate themselves. I have no problem pushing for change in the system. But until that change occurs, just accepting the flawed system (and getting screwed later on due to poor work ethic) is in no way smart.

by **Ralith The Third** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:33 pm UTC

Why bother?

by **Chen** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:39 pm UTC

Ralith The Third wrote:Why bother?

Because, as people have posted here, the lack of work ethic in high school can lead to difficulties later in higher education.

by **Lithium33** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:11 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Ralith The Third wrote:Why bother?

Because, as people have posted here, the lack of work ethic in high school can lead to difficulties later in higher education.

Well yes, but it is difficult to see a direct reward for studying in high school when you are smartish. Why would one study for a test where you would get a 95 without studying, and 98 with? I know work ethic is important, and that it's important to have one, but when you are in high school, usually there is little point.

I wish I had a stronger work ethic. I am far too lazy for my own good, and I just know it will bite me on the ass in college.

by **Macbi** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:20 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Ralith The Third wrote:Why bother?

Because, as people have posted here, the lack of work ethic in high school can lead to difficulties later in higher education.

The point is that laziness is a hard rut to get out of, because one is too lazy to do the work required to stop being lazy. No amount of smartishness seems to help.

by **achan1058** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:18 am UTC

Lithium33 wrote:I wish I had a stronger work ethic. I am far too lazy for my own good, and I just know it will bite me on the ass in college.

There's a fix. Study something so hard that you will need to work hard. Then, not only will you have better work ethic, you will be well prepared for college. (since you learn most of the materials already) The MIT open course ware is good for this.

Who is online