To the overachievers:

[intangible]

You know, the people warmly interested in learning—the people who consistently provide coursework that is above and beyond expectations. The people that really want to know the material well, and try to test their knowledge at every point of the learning process. Not necessarily competitive people, but people who just really enjoy what they're learning and want to be proficient.

To you: how do your professors take this? Personally, I've had varied responses. I've had professors who are really receptive and excited about someone sharing their interest in their field of study; others, less receptive: grading more harshly and overall, more emotionally driven to push you towards failure.

Discuss.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PlaqueBuster]

Its all in your personality and how you approach the professor. If you are ingenuine then professors can detect this immediately. But sometimes you can come across as someone sucking up even when you are genuine. Professors, most of them, have limited time and they would like to use that time to help students succeed in the class. If you wanted to chat about something unrelated make sure you are doing this without eatting away other students' time. The best way would be sending an email to the professor rather than going to open office hours.

 

[deleted407021]

All my professors have appreciated good work, some more than others and there are some classes that are really impossible to do poorly in, but also impossible to excell in, even if you have a 100 average because all assessments are multiple choice regurgitation. In these instances, the professor might remember your name better, but there's really a ceiling to how well you can do, given the nature of the assessment scheme.

 

[intangible]

I don't generally go to office hours or try to waste their time. I've just been in a lot of classes where excelling isn't handled well. Especially when assignments are graded by undergraduate TAs: I've had a few assignments I've done well in and had to hand back to the professor because the TA graded it very poorly (and apparently, not at all close to the actual criteria for grading). It's really frustrating trying to make the grade without pissing someone off at some point.

 

[Chansey]

A reliable rule of thumb:

Young professor = loves students who are enthusiastic
Old professor = hates students who are enthusiastic

By young professor, I usually mean a brand-new, pre-tenure, assistant professor generally in his or her early thirties. New professors are energetic and idealistic. They are excited to teach, and appreciate the interest you show in their class.

Older professors are generally burnt out and no longer excited by teaching. They teach every year, after all. They are less enthusiastic about office hours.

There are exceptions to these rules, but I've found this rule of thumb to be accurate.

 

[Goro]

There's a huge gap between those who honestly love learning, and those who are relentless in getting an A, period. Memorizing and learning are two different things.

You know, the people warmly interested in learning—the people who consistently provide coursework that is above and beyond expectations. The people that really want to know the material well, and try to test their knowledge at every point of the learning process. Not necessarily competitive people, but people who just really enjoy what they're learning and want to be proficient.

To you: how do your professors take this? Personally, I've had varied responses. I've had professors who are really receptive and excited about someone sharing their interest in their field of study; others, less receptive: grading more harshly and overall, more emotionally driven to push you towards failure.

Discuss.

 

[SnakeOilForSale]

My classes are pretty small (usually about 20 students, the very largest classes like orgo/bio have 60 max) so I'm more easily noticed for scoring high than someone who is in a huge lecture hall I'd imagine. They do tend to notice me not just because of that, but because I'm a little weird as well.

I've had neutral to really enthusiastic responses. A few professors have approached me to talk about my goals and background etc. It was actually two of them who approached me and told me to shoot for medical school instead of nursing in my first year. The ones who do talk to me keep in touch and go out of their way to find opportunities for me. These are the few I consider as mentors who have really shaped my college experience moreso than anything else.

It's harder to get to know them in science classes vs. Humanities but not impossible. I did have to approach a few professors in sciences that I didn't really know at all for reccs and they were very positive and said I was a good student and agreed to write them. So nothing has ever been negative. Worst case scenario is that they just don't really talk to me and I don't get a chance to know them, but I've never felt that I've been held to a higher standard or unfairly graded.

 

[intangible]

There's a huge gap between those who honestly love learning, and those who are relentless in getting an A, period. Memorizing and learning are two different things.

Would you call them mutually exclusive? Perhaps more of a devil's advocate approach, but medical school is the game of "let's throw spaghetti at the ceiling and hope it sticks" in terms of material to be memorized or otherwise regurgitated, whether on exams or boards. The deep level of processing required for that kind of information is just impossible to achieve in a timely manner.

Similarly, someone who does well and enjoys the challenge should want to be rewarded for their hard work.

Relentlessness in the way you describe isn't particularly an active action, per se. It's an attitude. Not everyone suffers from that particular hubris.

 

[Goro]

Mutually exclusive, no. Big overlap? Probably not.

Would you call them mutually exclusive? Perhaps more of a devil's advocate approach, but medical school is the game of "let's throw spaghetti at the ceiling and hope it sticks" in terms of material to be memorized or otherwise regurgitated, whether on exams or boards. The deep level of processing required for that kind of information is just impossible to achieve in a timely manner.

Similarly, someone who does well and enjoys the challenge should want to be rewarded for their hard work.

Relentlessness in the way you describe isn't particularly an active action, per se. It's an attitude. Not everyone suffers from that particular hubris.

 

[pluto101]

This is somewhat of an excuse I make for my middling GPA, but it's also a decent lesson in the difference between grades and learning.

I've never cared about the grade I get in the class. I've always studied until I felt comfortable with the material. I'm also very bad at memorizing, but very good at learning concepts.

This has led to an A-/B+ grade record. But it also means that the material has never been dull or a burden for me. I generally read assignments and find pleasure in them, and I came to class prepared and engaged. My teachers by and large loved me, and the more writing in a class, the better my grade.

It also meant that when I couldn't look terms up, I often used crutches like "thingy" and "CD5- no - CD4? The helper ones, you know" when talking about what I studied. I still do when talking about my research off the cuff. In conversation, most professors are willing to overlook that sort of thing. But on exams, especially short-answer and multiple choice, it's hurt me quite a bit. I've gotten better about it, and I generally arrive on the right answer now, but it's still something that concerns me as I move into medical school.

In my experience, students who annoy teachers are the ones that pride themselves on their knowledge and ability to regurgitate information without really engaging with the material.

 

[ridethecliche]

The students that I remember baffling my professors most were the ones that would sit close to the front, never take any notes, never say a word, and beast every test.

The ones they enjoyed were the smart ones they could see helping teach others that were struggling because they enjoyed the material to the point of getting joy out of sharing it

 

[intangible]

Mutually exclusive, no. Big overlap? Probably not.

Agreed. Just wanted to throw that out there at some point. A lot of us forumites, I think, really do like to learn. Medicine is just about one of the most intellectual fields you can get into (of course, other specialized fields can get just as intellectual or even more so—but medicine as a discipline is definitely pretty high).

My point is, admissions isn't a game of who is most genuine about their thirst for knowledge. It's about whether or not you can handle medical school. It's ultimately about whether or not adcoms think you can make the grade and walk down the aisle with your MD/DO and a white coat. Which, of course, involves proving yourself at the undergraduate level. Pushing yourself to pull as close to an A average as you possibly can, while simultaneously juggling community service (both medical and nonmedical), research, shadowing, extracurricular activities/clubs, fraternities, personal hobbies...oh, and a social life—because being a monotone interviewee is grounds for immediate rejection.

With the rising academic and social expectations of admissions committees being imposed on undergraduates over time, can you really afford to be so idealistic about the kind of applicant you're actually admitting? Sure, they want to do medicine. But people can't just blindly impose passions that don't exist. I like medicine. I have liked learning. School, however, wasn't my forté. I have to take life by the reins, though—because that's what adcoms like you want to see.

I suppose that makes me pretentious, standoffish and disingenuous. What can I say? I have a goal I'm intent on meeting, one way or another—even if it's against my nature.

This is somewhat of an excuse I make for my middling GPA, but it's also a decent lesson in the difference between grades and learning.

I've never cared about the grade I get in the class. I've always studied until I felt comfortable with the material. I'm also very bad at memorizing, but very good at learning concepts.

This has led to an A-/B+ grade record. But it also means that the material has never been dull or a burden for me. I generally read assignments and find pleasure in them, and I came to class prepared and engaged. My teachers by and large loved me, and the more writing in a class, the better my grade.

It also meant that when I couldn't look terms up, I often used crutches like "thingy" and "CD5- no - CD4? The helper ones, you know" when talking about what I studied. I still do when talking about my research off the cuff. In conversation, most professors are willing to overlook that sort of thing. But on exams, especially short-answer and multiple choice, it's hurt me quite a bit. I've gotten better about it, and I generally arrive on the right answer now, but it's still something that concerns me as I move into medical school.

In my experience, students who annoy teachers are the ones that pride themselves on their knowledge and ability to regurgitate information without really engaging with the material.

Yeah, see above. I'm more or less on the same boat. Honestly, I think I stick out more because I have the misfortune of being in the company of less academically strong individuals—rather than necessarily being any smarter than anyone else.

 

[Goro]

I hated guys like that. One would fall asleep in my Basic Chemistry class, and ace every exam!

The students that I remember baffling my professors most were the ones that would sit close to the front, never take any notes, never say a word, and beast every test.

The ones they enjoyed were the smart ones they could see helping teach others that were struggling because they enjoyed the material to the point of getting joy out of sharing it

 

[SnakeOilForSale]

The students that I remember baffling my professors most were the ones that would sit close to the front, never take any notes, never say a word, and beast every test.

The ones they enjoyed were the smart ones they could see helping teach others that were struggling because they enjoyed the material to the point of getting joy out of sharing it

Oh god, this is me. I've been asked about it by professors. One even apologized to me saying he had to teach at a slow pace for the average student. It was a little awkward.

 

[AspiringERMD]

I hated guys like that. One would fall asleep in my Basic Chemistry class, and ace every exam!

I was similar, in my general physics I and II courses, at least until we hit E&M second semester. Got 100 on every midterm until then (dipped a LOT after that, but still pulled an A). Rather than sleep in the class though, I just usually slept through it at home. If I came to class, I usually just surfed the Internet. The poor professor was not exactly my biggest fan, and I don't blame him. I kind of felt bad, but not bad enough to show up to early morning classes and listen...

 

[jared_the_great]

I've never gotten on a prof's bad side for doing well. If anything, it often makes them take an interest and try to chat me up after class.

The only times I had profs seem to really dislike me (twice that I remember), it was for skipping a lot of class, sitting in the back not paying attention when I did go, and then still acing the courses. And even then, it was pretty much only the profs who were a bit control-freakish and treated their students like children.