The Myth of the Underachieving Genius
skorks.com
The Myth of the Underachieving Genius
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: The Myth of the Underachieving Genius
#2It seems to me that the author is arguing against a straw man. As far as I can tell, very few people are arguing that people with lower grades are better than those with good grades.
I think the prevailing sentiment is that it's a poor filter to simply disregard those that didn't do well in school -- the idea is not to abandon high-GPA students for lower-GPA students, but to consider both.
Re: The Myth of the Underachieving Genius
#3And apparently this "genius" thinks implication is the same as equivalence.
I don't think anyone claims everyone who has mediocre grades is a genius - it is not a sufficient condition, or even necessary. So now he hoists up a straw man, and then attempts to reverse it once again to not only claim that because mediocre grades do not mean someone is a genius, mediocre grades must mean they are NOT a genius, but also that good grades are a sufficient condition for genius.
In conclusion, don't bother reading this author's rubbish. I can't say if he grades are good, but I know for a fact he isn't a genius.
Re: The Myth of the Underachieving Genius
#4It seems to me that the author is arguing against a straw man. As far as I can tell, very few people are arguing that people with lower grades are better than those with good grades. I think the prevailing sentiment is that it's a poor filter to simply disregard those that didn't do well in school -- the idea is not to abandon high-GPA students for lower-GPA students, but to consider both .
This is true, but you wouldn't know it from the common rhetoric. We praise the comeback kid; the author points out that we need to remember that it's a far better bet never to fall behind in the first place.
Re: The Myth of the Underachieving Genius
#5It's sort of silly to suggest that people assess someone based on grades when first meeting them (or ever). No one has ever asked me about my grades in any level of education-they're average to below average compared to my peers (2.5-3.0). Most people assume that I did very well in school because I spend a great deal of time reading about a wide variety of subjects so I tend to know a lot about whatever topic comes up at lunch or whatever.
I've met some people who got good grades but can't do anything useful so they go nowhere. I've met some people who make my grades look excellent and they're much more capable than I am in terms of programming skills (in my estimation at least). In my experience the ability to influence people in an organization and read people's feelings is far more important to success than grades. Even the smartest people I know whose social skills are bad tend to have problems getting where they want to go in life.
I assume that people who write these kinds of articles did well in school (Joel Spolsky's made this point before so I'm mostly thinking of him). I think that people who did poorly in school are less likely to write this sort of article and thus if they did I'd pay closer attention to what they're saying. These sort of statements strike me as self serving and defensive.
If you did well in school you played by the rules and you got your reward already. Your parents were happy with you, your teachers didn't ever give you the lecture that went like this "If you only tried a little bit you'd be getting an A in this class", your friends admired your achievement, etc. I'm not sure I feel any need to give you anything more than you already have received. I don't resent your success at all but it's hard for me to feel sorry for you if people notice the underachievers who made it before they notice you.
Re: The Myth of the Underachieving Genius
#6Original Blog Title: High Academic Results Make Better Programmers
Personal anecdote about laziness and grades: My freshman year of college, I had a semester where I decided that video games were more important than school. I got a terrible gpa, lost all my scholarships, etc. I spent the next several years making it up. Now I didn't quite just rebound to high 3's and 4.0's, it took a few semesters to overcome my bad habits first (3.2,3.5,etc). Eventually I ended up with a cumulative 3.5.
While I do regret getting that poor of grades, it does provide some talking material for an interview (provided your lower grades don't pre-filter you). It shows that you realized your mistakes, worked to improve yourself, and with your high junior/senior level grades, that you actually are smart enough to do the work (well, as much as college can prepare you for that).
So, I guess my point is that even if you have had bad grades, you still have time to prove yourself, and may even end up with interview talking points.
Re: The Myth of the Underachieving Genius
#7[deleted]
Re: The Myth of the Underachieving Genius
#8It's sort of silly to suggest that people assess someone based on grades when first meeting them (or ever). No one has ever asked me about my grades in any level of education-they're average to below average compared to my peers (2.5-3.0). Most people assume that I did very well in school because I spend a great deal of time reading about a wide variety of subjects so I tend to know a lot about whatever topic comes u…
I agree,
Ppl with good grades have hard time accepting someone without them to be as good or even better than they are.
For them grades become like a company whose share they hold. And any one making an arument against their fallibility even in special situation makes them extremely self conscious!
Re: The Myth of the Underachieving Genius
#9Straw-man.
Re: The Myth of the Underachieving Genius
#10It seems to me that the author is arguing against a straw man. As far as I can tell, very few people are arguing that people with lower grades are better than those with good grades. I think the prevailing sentiment is that it's a poor filter to simply disregard those that didn't do well in school -- the idea is not to abandon high-GPA students for lower-GPA students, but to consider both .
This is true, but you wouldn't know it from the common rhetoric. We praise the comeback kid; the author points out that we need to remember that it's a far better bet never to fall behind in the first place.
> "we need to remember that it's a far better bet never to fall behind in the first place."
True in principle, but since when did low/mediocre grades become associated with "falling behind"?
I think that's the cognitive disconnect between the two camps - the pro-academic crowd sees poor grades as a general failure, the rest of us do not.
Addressing the article directly:
> "Those who get good grades are the ultimate survivors."
That's awfully generous, if not quite self-congratulatory. As a staunch believer in the disconnect between academic achievement and real programming competence, I would suggest that the comment is true - but you've survived an arbitrary system constructed to achieve very little. It's a little bit like finding your way out of a garden maze - amusing and interesting perhaps, probably difficult, but the relation of this accomplishment to anything else is hazy.
> "They enter an environment, evaluate it critically to figure out what skills they need to succeed and thrive in said environment."
Perhaps - but assuming the goal is to be a great programmer (or whatever else your passion may be), why would you spend all your time and effort defeating this arbitrary system as opposed to pursuing things that actually make you a better programmer? (or carpenter, or doctor, or what-have-you).
That's the disconnect that I see. Academic performance is measured in such a way that doesn't shed light on real ability, and in fact much of the curriculum for a lot of degrees/certificates bear little relevance to the job they supposedly train for. Beating this system is IMHO meaningless, since it contributes little to your professional abilities.
Which is also why I think the medciore grades sometimes get a lot of love - I know more than a few people who eschewed academia in exchange for actually getting their hands dirty and writing a lot of code. They learned what they needed to learn from school, and spent the rest of the time perfecting their craft instead. IMHO these people make stronger programmers than those who spent their time and effort optimizing for something that isn't their end goal.
When I was in college, I knew a few people who were hardcore academics. They hit the books really hard, got great grades, aced exams regularly, and generally were kicking ass. What they were not doing was developing their professional abilities - so they graduated with little to no practical experience under their belt. They were rudely surprised when their intensely deep knowledge of a great number of theories weren't at all attractive to employers who needed people to get things done.
I also knew this one guy who was academic and spent a lot of time honing his real, executable skills. He's a superstar.
Given that, I would say that the real discerning variable here is how much practice you've had at programming - the variable of academic achievements is really largely independent from competence as a hacker.
> "there is nothing that stops a high achiever from being a passionate, free-thinking, risk-taker"
I would agree with this point with some caveats, but this comment strikes me as particularly arrogant:
> "good grades make better anything"
Really man, really? Wow, thanks for reinforcing the ivory-tower holier-than-thou stereotype that academics surely must love having.
[edit] At the risk of being inflammatory, a lot of this "high grades make better everything" hubbub seems like sour grapes from people who optimized for the wrong variable, and are now frustrated that the "losers" from before have become the winners (insofar as employment goes anyhow), and that the variable they were taught to religiously optimize turned out to be a bit pointless (for the purposes of employment, anyhow).