Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
To be in the popular/party crowd in my high school didn't mean you didn't care about grades. I think if you don't care at all about grades then you are definitely lowering your probability of success. If you don't care about grades you're not going to accidentally get into university. You have to care and plan to get accepted, there's little doubt about that.
My strategy is more to put in the effort to get adequate grades to get into your program, but do not push much beyond that. Like, the amount of time for many people to go from an 85% average to a 95% average would be insane and not a good use of youth/time/energy. If you're adding 15+ hours a week of studying to get that extra (and unnecessary) 10% versus socializing, then I think you're doing your future self and opportunities a disservice.
My point isn't to work less for the sake of working less. My point is to get good enough grades and also focus on your social life and making fun memories that build the foundation of a person people like and want to be around.
The people who were weirdly studious to the point of being anonymous NPC background characters in high school absolutely - and without exception - hit a glass ceiling in their careers from what I can see. And the saddest part is they seem absolutely befuddled by it as they were indoctrinated to think the higher your grades are the more successful you'll be. I don't think it plays out like that.
It seems very rational to me. People that know how to interact and work with others, how to joke around, how to motivate, how to accept losses and dust off, etc. That is the recipe for a successful person. The guy studying and getting straight As just will not have those qualities.
|
It's about being well balanced academically, socially and other ways. Your concept has an element of truth about it that has been studied before. I can't remember the context but I remember someone saying that A students sometimes were passed over for B students and C students during hiring.
The reasoning being was the A students were the cream of the crop demanded the top, often had multiple offers and assumed they knew everything when they started the role. They were often (but not always) harder to teach.
B students knew a lot they knew didn't know everything and were more willing to learn, also less likely to accept a different offer even if your firm offered them a contract because they were less likely to have multiple offers.
C students were more likely to be available to be hired, often teachable, but you didn't know whether you would just get a worker bee on auto pilot vs someone who could accomplish more because they knew they had to catch up (but someone like that typically ends up shooting past most of the other A and B students longer term).
I think the concept also spoke about how well they would work in teams. A team of pure A students would likely have a bunch of them go rogue, some of the roles were always beneath them. B and C student groups were far more likely to collaborate and allocate roles appropriately per individual strength/weaknesses.