Is it possible for anyone to nail an "A"....?

[t2oo5]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Heres a question Ive been thinking about a lot: For someone to do well on an appropriate college level course, is it simply based on how much time that individual donates to the cause, or does natural ability have to play somewhat of a role too?
My thoughts.. I think anyone can nail an A in any course (appropriate level) if they put in the required time needed. Different people may merit different times, but I think anyone is physically able. What do you guys think?

 

[akademiks1989]

It all comes down to studying...a lot. If you can't put in the time, you won't be as successful as other students.

 

[szhao]

It all comes down to studying...a lot. If you can't put in the time, you won't be as successful as other students.

i would agrue, some people have to study more than others, but if you put in the effort then you should be fine.

 

[Robizzle]

Definitely D. There are some people who work their ass off but still can not pull an A. It depends on the class, also. One that involves pure memorization can be more of a choice B.

 

[jstuds_66]

Sometimes, teachers are just jerks. So, although for the most part true, I don't think you can put an absolute on that. I had a Biology teacher who got sick of people saying his class was easy. So, he took it out on my class that semester. Out of a class of 60 pre-med/pre-dent students, I think half a dozen got an A-. I personally got a B. I wish I hadn't spent so much time studying for that class because it hurt me in my other classes. Sometimes, teachers are just jerks, so it isn't always how much time the student studies.

 

[HumbleMD]

There's no way it depends solely on how much time a person puts in. I look at my sister, who no matter how much time she puts in will never be able to do calculus. I think we're giving ourselves too much credit if we believe our merits are attained fully through the work of ourselves. There's a lot of nature (and a lot of nurture we weren't in control of) working in our favor.

 

[austinap]

Sometimes, teachers are just jerks. So, although for the most part true, I don't think you can put an absolute on that. I had a Biology teacher who got sick of people saying his class was easy. So, he took it out on my class that semester. Out of a class of 60 pre-med/pre-dent students, I think half a dozen got an A-. I personally got a B. I wish I hadn't spent so much time studying for that class because it hurt me in my other classes. Sometimes, teachers are just jerks, so it isn't always how much time the student studies.

Just a question: what type of school do you go to? (private, public, large private, etc...). 10% of a class getting in the 'A- or better range' is pretty standard here. If more than 15% get A's, the class is considered easy. If more than 20%, it's a joke.

Carrying on from this, I think it's safe to say that comparing A's at different institutions is comparing apples to oranges. It also depends a lot across departments: for example, I think anyone that puts in enough time I can get an A in lower level bio classes. However, I don't think the same is the case for upper level chem, physics, or math courses. In more "thinking" rather than "material" oriented courses, the time spent isn't quite as important.

 

[JDovers]

From what I've seen (5 yrs of undergrad), grades are simply a reflection of one's ability to please their elders, rarely having to do with processor speed.

 

[SportsMedMD]

Just a question: what type of school do you go to? (private, public, large private, etc...). 10% of a class getting in the 'A- or better range' is pretty standard here. If more than 15% get A's, the class is considered easy. If more than 20%, it's a joke.

What school do you go to? You shoudl transfer immediately, haha. Unless you are talking about like O-chem or something, which hard curves are standard.

 

[Smokey]

There's no way it depends solely on how much time a person puts in. I look at my sister, who no matter how much time she puts in will never be able to do calculus. I think we're giving ourselves too much credit if we believe our merits are attained fully through the work of ourselves. There's a lot of nature (and a lot of nurture we weren't in control of) working in our favor.

I just want to say that I have never thought about it that way. It's easy to think "I worked my butt off, I deserved to do well. It's all because I work hard." But it's not. Good point, thanks for posting that.

I kind of always thought that this was "the nice answer" vs. "I don't study much I am good test taker, etc." But it does show a lack of respect for what other people have done for you.

 

[dutchman]

For the most part, but I have come across some engineering classes where getting an A is almost based on your genetics.

 

[lina123321]

Heres a question Ive been thinking about a lot: For someone to do well on an appropriate college level course, is it simply based on how much time that individual donates to the cause, or does natural ability have to play somewhat of a role too?

it depends on both. i think being "smart" ,tho, refers to whether you've masterered/adopted efficient ways of studying. if u study w/techniques that work for you, the more time u devote, the better you'll do in the class. but, lets say u're an arts major, and u have to take a class in a subject you really hate, ie. math. the way u approach that class, ie, by justifying that class as being irrelevant or uninteresting, u've adopted that view of thinking, and it'll be really hard to get that A; even if you could have gotten that A, but instead end up w/a B or C, you wouldn't feel as bad b/c you attributed your performance to the situation, not to yourself.

(can't u tell, finals are getting to me😱 ...lol)

 

[inside_edition]

There's no way it depends solely on how much time a person puts in. I look at my sister, who no matter how much time she puts in will never be able to do calculus. I think we're giving ourselves too much credit if we believe our merits are attained fully through the work of ourselves. There's a lot of nature (and a lot of nurture we weren't in control of) working in our favor.

HumbleMD, at our school there is also a huge subjectivity factor. when you have to write a paper without the professor/gsi telling you what he/she expects from it, then you can get screwed. plus all those gsi's who don't like your style.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

Honestly it depends on where you go to school and the field.

for example, im pretty sure if you're doing chemical engineering at caltech intelligence matters the most by far

other factors are curves, competition within the class (does everyone want an A and will work for it?) etc

 

[nicoleb]

I honestly think this mostly depends on effort more then "time" specifically. I think how you study is just as important as how much you study. In the end it is just a matter of finding what works best for yourself.

 

[Karina 07]

***It 100% depends on the course.***

Math courses? I could walk into the exam, without studying, and figure it all out during the exam.

Try that in a course where you have to prove that you've memorized 1,000 different little things.

 

[Karina 07]

Also:

I imagine that most of you are comparing the following scenario: someone who tries really hard, but is only medium-smart, and someone who is really smart, but doesn't try at all.

But those aren't the only two scenarios, right? Maybe just the most likely, or maybe not even that, just the ones that *we've* encountered??

Re-phrase the question: who is going to do better, someone who tries really hard, but is really dumb, or someone who is really smart, but really puts no effort in at all?

(Of course, you'd want to be the person who's really smart AND tries really hard. They're always going to do better than those who just try really hard, imho, unless the course is graded in some weird way.)

 

[HumbleMD]

HumbleMD, at our school there is also a huge subjectivity factor. when you have to write a paper without the professor/gsi telling you what he/she expects from it, then you can get screwed. plus all those gsi's who don't like your style.

What school? Sure, for a humanities course there's subjectivity, but it's pretty hard to call Orgo or Calc subjective.

 

[HumbleMD]

I just want to say that I have never thought about it that way. It's easy to think "I worked my butt off, I deserved to do well. It's all because I work hard." But it's not. Good point, thanks for posting that.

I kind of always thought that this was "the nice answer" vs. "I don't study much I am good test taker, etc." But it does show a lack of respect for what other people have done for you.

Heh, thanks😳 . It was a big shift in my thinking when I realized much of the opportunities at my Undergrad (which helped me into a succesfull med school application) were from a great K-12 education and very supportive person. I think sometimes the "privilege" debate starts to get a bit extreme, but lately I've been very much under the "to whom much is given, much is expected" mentality lately.

 

[MirrorTodd]

Depends on the person. Two of my brothers could pass pretty much any class without studying any. A couple of my other brothers have to study as much as possible to get A's. I'm somewhere in between. As long as I go to class and pay attention, I can study just a little bit.

 

[thesauce]

Depends on the person. Two of my brothers could pass pretty much any class without studying any. A couple of my other brothers have to study as much as possible to get A's. I'm somewhere in between. As long as I go to class and pay attention, I can study just a little bit.

Whose to say that those 2 brothers that don't have to study to PASS wouldn't have to study as much as possible to get A's? Those brothers working hard to get A's might not have to study at all if they only wanted to PASS.

The 2 scenarios don't sound mutually exclusive at all.

 

[LifetimeDoc]

Come on people, this is only undergrad we are talking about. It's a piece of cake. Just put in the effort to study, and anybody that could possibly make it through medical school can get A's and a few B's in college if they focus hard enough. I wish I had focused years ago, and am paying the price now. But you can make it through undergrad if you just focus.🙄

 

[amathew]

Honestly it depends on where you go to school and the field.

for example, im pretty sure if you're doing chemical engineering at caltech intelligence matters the most by far

other factors are curves, competition within the class (does everyone want an A and will work for it?) etc

Curves are key! At our school, only a certain percentile could get A, and if everyone did relatively well, it doesn't matter if you scored 90+, if you're not in that top 10 percentile, you get a B. I hated that!!

But then, such a question is hard to answer. I had a friend who had photographic memory. We took one class together, he studied the night before, while I spent a whole week studying for the finals. And I managed to only get a point higher than him in our final. Is that smarts? I wouldn't say so. But it was definitely my hard work that got me the grade. It also varies with subject. Someone who's good at visualizing the organic chem molecules might not be as creative in an English Composition class. That sort of thing.

 

[j-med]

Well I think it depends on subjects and the person's background.

1. higher level physics course- not everyone can understand and do well in it even if worked really hard

2. But some non-humanities courses, like Math- calculus, I think working hard would do it. Not sure about higher-level math courses though -- math majors, what do you think?

3. Writing - depends on your language ability! IQ still counts cos it has to be logical too

 

[inside_edition]

What school? Sure, for a humanities course there's subjectivity, but it's pretty hard to call Orgo or Calc subjective.

duh, most (but not all) of the non-science courses i've taken were very subjective.

 

[MirrorTodd]

Whose to say that those 2 brothers that don't have to study to PASS wouldn't have to study as much as possible to get A's? Those brothers working hard to get A's might not have to study at all if they only wanted to PASS.

The 2 scenarios don't sound mutually exclusive at all.

My absentmindedness? at play. I meant that they get A's without really studying. Messed up the wording on that one. My bad.

 

[gujuDoc]

Not saying there are exceptions to what I'm about to say because there are people born with learning disabilities that don't enable them to be able to go to college like those with severe mental ******ation. However, that said I do think to a certain extent that it depends on the person.

Some people with high high high IQs will have no trouble getting good grades with minimal studying while other people will need to study much longer hours to learn the same material. Also, I think those who were raised with a different language then English sometimes are slower readers and comprehending English making them need more time to grasp the material especially in something like bio where the terminology is different in different languages. This is what I observed around where I live. I have a roommate who does very well but she needs to study more then someone who's been raised with English as their first language because she's a slow reader when she reads things in English but she works hards and get straight A's for the most part.

So I guess the best answer choice and the one I went with was answer choice D along with the rest of the majority.

 

[rcd]

Uhh, have you ever seen WarGames? All you need is a computer and a 1200-baud modem. Schools upgraded to grade keeper 2000 recently though, which comes with additional levels of protection. Luckily, even though additional protection is widely available at college campuses, few people use it. So you should have no problem inserting your virus.

 

[MEG@COOL]

Depends on class, but at my school they gear classes to be more dependent on work ethic than smartness. At my old university it was more of a mix.

 

[xpinchx]

I have found in my studies that one doesn't have to be smart to do well in school. I would say 70% is work ethic, 25% is having a good teacher, and 5% is actual intelligence (assuming you may not be the smartest person alive, but you have the ability to comprehend well.)

 

[CareerBaffled]

Well I think it depends on subjects and the person's background.

1. higher level physics course- not everyone can understand and do well in it even if worked really hard

2. But some non-humanities courses, like Math- calculus, I think working hard would do it. Not sure about higher-level math courses though -- math majors, what do you think?

After TAing and tutoring math for a couple of years, I can tell you that I've had a few people that have worked like hell for the class, only to fail it (and I'm talking failing, as in F). It's probably the hardest thing about tutoring a subject like that. I've TA'd for basic college algebra and tutored all the way up through calculus, and in every class there are some people who just aren't going to get it. I can't think of many other fields where that kind of effort would not get you a decent grade. Physics, yes. Biology, no way. Non-sciences, no way.

 

[PhantomfanMD]

Heres a question Ive been thinking about a lot: For someone to do well on an appropriate college level course, is it simply based on how much time that individual donates to the cause, or does natural ability have to play somewhat of a role too?
My thoughts.. I think anyone can nail an A in any course (appropriate level) if they put in the required time needed. Different people may merit different times, but I think anyone is physically able. What do you guys think?

I'm pretty sure it would be very hard for those with learning disabilities to get an A in very tough upper division chem, bio, physics courses as they just can't seem to grasp some of the concepts. I think natural ability has a large role in it but someone can have all the natural ability in the world and fail a course due to lack of dedication to that course.

 

[deleted127837]

.

 

[gujuDoc]

Uhh, have you ever seen WarGames? All you need is a computer and a 1200-baud modem. Schools upgraded to grade keeper 2000 recently though, which comes with additional levels of protection. Luckily, even though additional protection is widely available at college campuses, few people use it. So you should have no problem inserting your virus.

Huh? I admit I didn't read a lot of the rest of other people's posts, but what are you responding to? What does this do with the original topic?? I'm confused.

 

[gujuDoc]

I'd also say that the factor of how the teacher structures a course and the strengths and weaknesses of a student (i.e how do they learn the best? Are they someone who is strong in science or a particular area of science such as physical sciences vs. biological sciences or are they stronger in another area) will play into grades a bit.

Also, by structuring the class I mean how does the teacher grade you, what scale do they use, how tough are the tests and are they mutliple choice vs. written tests which are more subjective. how tough do they make their exams? These are things that are taken into account but again I'd say the best option is choice D.

 

[PhantomfanMD]

memorization = time commitment to material
application of concepts = intelligence

Depending on how a professor tests I think would be telling of how "smart" a person is. If the professor writes tests where students have to apply their knowledge of the material to other things that means that students that are more intelligent will do well while the other less intelligent students won't do as well who may have studied just as long or even longer. On the other hand, if a professor tests for simple regurgitation of something (definitions, facts, etc.) and a student answers all the questions correctly, that shows that person has obviously studied the material but isn't necessarily more intelligent than anyone else in the class.

 

[croucht]

memorization = time commitment to material
application of concepts = intelligence

Depending on how a professor tests I think would be telling of how "smart" a person is. If the professor writes tests where students have to apply their knowledge of the material to other things that means that students that are more intelligent will do well while the other less intelligent students won't do as well who may have studied just as long or even longer. On the other hand, if a professor tests for simple regurgitation of something (definitions, facts, etc.) and a student answers all the questions correctly, that shows that person has obviously studied the material but isn't necessarily more intelligent than anyone else in the class.

👍 Definitely agree. The thing that blurs the lines is that a lot of the "smart" people are the people that are motivated to go to class to do well...especially in the pre-med group. A lot of them think logically and realize that work=results. It's tough to distinguish between the two, mainly because most people in our competitive field are extremely hesitant to reveal actual grades, especially in classes that we may not have performed our best. That's all I can come up with drunk on a sat night/sun morning. Later yall.

 

[gujuDoc]

memorization = time commitment to material
application of concepts = intelligence

Depending on how a professor tests I think would be telling of how "smart" a person is. If the professor writes tests where students have to apply their knowledge of the material to other things that means that students that are more intelligent will do well while the other less intelligent students won't do as well who may have studied just as long or even longer. On the other hand, if a professor tests for simple regurgitation of something (definitions, facts, etc.) and a student answers all the questions correctly, that shows that person has obviously studied the material but isn't necessarily more intelligent than anyone else in the class.

Hence why we have this little thing called the MCAT!!! LOL

But yeah good post. Totally agree.

 

[gujuDoc]

👍 Definitely agree. The thing that blurs the lines is that a lot of the "smart" people are the people that are motivated to go to class to do well...especially in the pre-med group. A lot of them think logically and realize that work=results. It's tough to distinguish between the two, mainly because most people in our competitive field are extremely hesitant to reveal actual grades, especially in classes that we may not have performed our best. That's all I can come up with drunk on a sat night/sun morning. Later yall.

I don't know if it is going to class that makes the big difference. I know I've had several classes where going to class was not necessary to get an A because everything was online and it was regurgitation but then I've had classes where you needed to go to class to get the material because it was more then regurgitation of what you had posted online or a class where notes weren' posted online.

Also, I have friends in med school that stopped going to lectures afterawhile and were performing high Honors in medical school. This is especially true in medical school because a lot of times they put the lectures online via video streaming so you can still watch the lectures.

 

[t2oo5]

OK, new scenario:
Take an average ability student who tries their hardest to do well in a class but cannot break a "D". I believe that the problem lies not in their ability to do the new material, but their mastery of simple concepts associated in the course. My theory is that if that person were to go far back as possible to the basics, and work their way up applying their maximum effort, they would not have a problem in the class they are struggling in.
For example: Someone mentioned their sister not understanding calculus for the life of her. I personally had a hard time in calculus, earning a B, for lack of effort as well as not really mastering basics, such as trig, etc (bad trig teacher in high school).
Hypothetically, I would bet money that if she went down say to Algebra, and mastered that, followed by geometry, trigonometry, precalc, etc. and finally worked back up to calculus, she would understand it and do well. Because it seems quite evident that the inability to understand a calculus concept lies within the context of not understanding a more simple concept. (Like the idea of asymptotes in precalc and limits in calculus.) I think it would be hard to understand a limit without understanding asymptotes! (No offense to the kids sister, just using her as a hypothetical example).
Anyways, this is why I think it depends upon the input of time a student dedicates, however, this is under the assumption of mastery of basic concepts.

What do you guys think of this?

 

[west nile]

wow, polls should really need to be approved before they are posted.

 

[tncekm]

Heres a question Ive been thinking about a lot: For someone to do well on an appropriate college level course, is it simply based on how much time that individual donates to the cause, or does natural ability have to play somewhat of a role too?
My thoughts.. I think anyone can nail an A in any course (appropriate level) if they put in the required time needed. Different people may merit different times, but I think anyone is physically able. What do you guys think?

I've taken one class in my life where that would not hold true. It was an orgo 1 class and I knew quite a few people in that class who studied as hard as they possibly could only to fail or get a C. The teacher was evil 😀

After a majority of the tests one would commonly hear "I've never studied so hard in my life only to be totally destroyed." lol

 

[gujuDoc]

I've taken one class in my life where that would not hold true. It was an orgo 1 class and I knew quite a few people in that class who studied as hard as they possibly could only to fail or get a C. The teacher was evil 😀

After a majority of the tests one would commonly hear "I've never studied so hard in my life only to be totally destroyed." lol

Orgo requires people trying to visualize 3d spatial structures in different arrangments and what not and a lot of people have a hard time grasping that compared to the more mathematical nature of general chemistry.

 

[tncekm]

Yep. My point was, the vast majority of the time anybody can get an A with hard work, but not always. There is some point where hard work isn't enough (just like with anything--most people can be good at basketball, for example, very few will ever play pro).

 

[gujuDoc]

OK, new scenario:
Take an average ability student who tries their hardest to do well in a class but cannot break a "D". I believe that the problem lies not in their ability to do the new material, but their mastery of simple concepts associated in the course. My theory is that if that person were to go far back as possible to the basics, and work their way up applying their maximum effort, they would not have a problem in the class they are struggling in.
For example: Someone mentioned their sister not understanding calculus for the life of her. I personally had a hard time in calculus, earning a B, for lack of effort as well as not really mastering basics, such as trig, etc (bad trig teacher in high school).
Hypothetically, I would bet money that if she went down say to Algebra, and mastered that, followed by geometry, trigonometry, precalc, etc. and finally worked back up to calculus, she would understand it and do well. Because it seems quite evident that the inability to understand a calculus concept lies within the context of not understanding a more simple concept. (Like the idea of asymptotes in precalc and limits in calculus.) I think it would be hard to understand a limit without understanding asymptotes! (No offense to the kids sister, just using her as a hypothetical example).
Anyways, this is why I think it depends upon the input of time a student dedicates, however, this is under the assumption of mastery of basic concepts.

What do you guys think of this?

I think you are right on the money. This is the same reason a lot of people don't do well in Verbal in the MCAT. If they went as far back as childhood and became an avid reader that learned proper comprehension skills as a child and had the extra push from childhood to do well in all the basics and beyond the minimal required to pass or get an A but instead went above the call of duty, they'd more likely be able to do well by the time it came to the important tests like SAT and later on MCAT and college courses. But if you've never been an avid reader a lot of times its hard to learn how to become faster at comprehending a passage within the given amount of time.

 

[gujuDoc]

Yep. My point was, the vast majority of the time anybody can get an A with hard work, but not always. There is some point where hard work isn't enough (just like with anything--most people can be good at basketball, for example, very few will ever play pro).

Well I don't think this idea applies to anything. For instance, something like singing. Singing is a talent you either have or you don't. Very very few people can learn it from having no talent whereas most people who are good singers are naturally talented to some degree even if they've later gotten professional training. But with school classes, i think getting A's can be done if you learn to figure out a teacher and how they are going to test you and grade you and do the work.

 

[tncekm]

I'll never understand why people believe that a person can never physically perform to a certain standard, yet mentally "anybody can".

That's just not the case. The vast majority of the time its possible for anyone to get an A. But definitely not always.

There are excellent minds every bit as much as there are excellent singers, runners, jumpers, etc.

 

[gujuDoc]

I'll never understand why people believe that a person can never physically perform to a certain standard, yet mentally "anybody can".

That's just not the case. The vast majority of the time its possible for anyone to get an A. But definitely not always.

There are excellent minds every bit as much as there are excellent singers, runners, jumpers, etc.

I wasn't saying there are exceptions of people who can't learn some things. But most of the time people who are premed or made it into college are people who have some semblence of intelligence to do what it takes to get the A because those completely incapable due to learning disabilities, mental ******ation, etc. are not people who'll even enter college to begin with.

 

[tncekm]

I wasn't saying there are exceptions of people who can't learn some things. But most of the time people who are premed or made it into college are people who have some semblence of intelligence to do what it takes to get the A because those completely incapable due to learning disabilities, mental ******ation, etc. are not people who'll even enter college to begin with.

Well, it looks like we're not in any disagreement here. I think if we changed the statement to "a large percentage of college kids could ace anything with enough effort" it would be very accurate.

 

[gujuDoc]

Well, it looks like we're not in any disagreement here. I think if we changed the statement to "a large percentage of college kids could ace anything with enough effort" it would be very accurate.

Yep!