Grades or Knowledge?

Well, what do you expect?
You all CARE about your grades.
I get decent grades without studying, so I don't study.
That's why I don't like World History AP.
I actually gotta study!

I don't like decent grades. I want to get grades like Grant.

What's more important, grades or knowledge?

That's not a rhetorical question, I actually am curious what you folks think.

Knowledge, by far.
Grades can set you up in a position to better learn and share knowledge (i.e. college) but, as some very important cases prove (Einstein, anyone?), you don't need great grades to contribute to a field.

Obviously knowledge. Einstein didn't do extraordinary well in school and he turned out to be a greater mortal.

just takes a looksy at Shultz


he pretty much failed in school and ended up being one of the greatest minds of the century

I concur, although i have to disagree with the "one of the greatest minds" of the century. Although Mr.Schultz proves that school does not really mean anything overall, i do believe that there were minds more superior to his and accomplish much bigger and valuable task. I do indeed agree with the fact that he is extremely creative which usually comes with a bit of intellect.

Grades are only an attempt to quantify knowledge or achievements. Depending on the specific teacher and student, grades' ability to measure success in applying knowledge varies.

One can learn without caring enough to show his/her knowledge or understanding in the teacher's grades.

The success also depends on what the teacher grades, if one area is heavily weighted that may bring the average down although the student may excel and be able to use another topic quite well.

I agree with Michael. Grades just show that you are exceptional at memorizing the concepts taught in your classrooms. Real knowledge and intellect depends on what you do with those memorized concepts.

For example : I am a bit of an expert in military history and i have yet to find a match to me. I am purely self-taught; i was not graded on the fall of Berlin or the siege of Stalingrad. Yet i know a lot more than the majority of people. To concrete Michael's argument, i bring up the point that one's true knowledge cannot be tested or quizzed on based on the basic curriculum. I excel at history, yet i do not have a 100 in world history AP because the course does not test me on my true knowledge.

i feel the same way, i felt rather crushed in bio when, clearly i understand myself, and being a living creature, i figured I'd be getting above the 90's i was getting, just naturally.

Yeah i know that was the point...i was agreeing with Andrew's point that school curriculum are too broad in nature.
Depends, if one memorizes a lot of facts it would be meaningless if one could not explain their meanings. Automatons memorize, experts analyze.

Ho Chi Minh wrote:Depends, if one memorizes a lot of facts it would be meaningless if one could not explain their meanings. Automatons memorize, experts analyze.

That's why so many people struggle with math...they try to memorize it, when it's more logic. (And that's why I dislike history, because I have to memorize the facts before I can explain them on the test).

Well im the opposite. I understand then memorize.

A true understanding of a topic, such as military history goes beyond the memorized knowledge. It's one thing to know that Hannibal employed a crushing double-envelopment at Cannae through (among other things) the skillful use of cavalry and full flanking maneuvers. It's another to be able to perceive when such a maneuver should be utilized, and how it's done properly.

With math, memorization tells you your basic arithmetic, but algebra, geometry, calc and higher maths require true understanding of when myriad techniques should be employed.

Basically, history has a larger set of information that must be memorized before the application stage can begin. A person might fail to memorize the fact that the Crash of 1987, the Great Crash of 1929, the Panic of 1893, the Panic of 1876 and the Panic of 1873 (as well as many others) were caused by a lack of government regulation of particular industries. Therefore, that person might feel that a lack of government regulation would be a good thing for, say, the banking industry. Such a circumstance might end with collapse of the financial sector throughout the world, necessitating a government bailout. But we all know that that kind of thing won't happen, since everyone has memorized their historical facts.

Oh...right.

Indeed.

Of course, math follows a specific logic and requires extensive practice and exposure to a topic in order to master it.

Agreed.

LOL...

Ho Chi Minh wrote:making labeling everyone else and expecting them to be like you.
a scholar of your caliber shouldn't be posting ignorant statements like that.

Figuring out how to explain things to others is quite a problem when one learns very easily; the curse of intelligence is that one has difficulty teaching others.

Ho Chi Minh wrote:

Munchlax wrote:

Ho Chi Minh wrote:For you it is. To assume that math is an easy concept for everyone would be wrong. Some are skilled at certain subjects while many are not.

lol u dum

skool iz ez

lol you're ignorant

making labeling everyone else and expecting them to be like you.
a scholar of your caliber shouldn't be posting ignorant statements like that.

Putting lol and ignorant in the same sentence is a bit strange. I can't imagine someone going mad with laughter and then saying someone else is ignorant.

Grant wrote:

Ho Chi Minh wrote:

Munchlax wrote:

Ho Chi Minh wrote:For you it is. To assume that math is an easy concept for everyone would be wrong. Some are skilled at certain subjects while many are not.

lol u dum

skool iz ez

lol you're ignorant

making labeling everyone else and expecting them to be like you.
a scholar of your caliber shouldn't be posting ignorant statements like that.

Putting lol and ignorant in the same sentence is a bit strange. I can't imagine someone going mad with laughter and then saying someone else is ignorant.

This topic is quickly turning into flaming. As we are in Math Club, which is the Elkins club of elite nerds, we should be able to carry on an intelligent discussion without resorting to personal attacks.

@Eric: as An said, not everyone is as gifted - and in any case, most people excel at a few subjects while struggling with others. While you may not, try to promote the discussion or start a new topic in the spam forum.

@Grant: I would love to find the person who doesn't laugh even occasionally at others' misunderstandings, whether in good faith or not.

@An: there's no need to take Eric's statement at face value, it's obvious it was designed to incite a strongly negative response. Responding in kind ("lol you're ignorant") does not help anyone.

Nameless wrote:Agreed. It is noteworthy that I wouldn't have to resort to personal attacks if none were directed at me.

While it is a pity that some of our most active members are acting immaturely, if you resort to their methods you lose the fight. Their goal is to start a flame war; your goal must be not to defeat them in flaming, but to make their attacks look foolish by taking the high ground. You're not fighting them, you're defending your own image against their statements. Their flaming cannot hurt your image as long as you respond with logic instead of insults.

Deleted Eric's spam post.

IMO, the curse of intelligence is laziness.
Many people are very complacent simply b/c they can get by w/o putting in the work.
This cycle perpetuates itself until the induvidual individual finally decide to work again...
then the cycle simply regrows as the person attempts to find an easier way to do work....