From what I've read, you have an astounding ability to look at complex situations and evaluate them in a very clear and fair manner, and then describe your findings in such a way that it's clear to whomever is reading your work. That's an incredibly rare skill. (and one that's rather highly valued, based on comments you receive)
Are the classes that you're not doing so well in ones that allow you to do this kind of extrapolation, or are they classes that are "how well do you regurgitate what section 508 states"?
I know I always got so bleeding frustrated at school when people who were utterly clueless did better than I did. Now that I'm older, I don't mind so much because I realize that the classes were geared a lot towards "measurable" things, like regurgitation, and it's much harder to measure (on an entire classroom) true competency and ability to use the knowledge in practical applications. I.E., How do you "measure" someone who is so adaptable and flexible that they can travel to a foreign country and do litigation in an unfamiliar environment, with rules that are different from what you were taught in schools?
Quit selling yourself short and saying maybe you're not as smart as your peers. Are they working in addition to school? And do they have the same ability to see as clearly as you do on issues?
Maybe it is worth it to talk to the professor to ask why you did get a flat b. Not to have it changed, but to figure out what it is that's being measured that you're not doing well at. Maybe they're looking at some (inane?) criteria that you're not focusing on.
You haven't failed your goal yet, you just haven't figured out how to do it yet.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
questions.......
Date: 2007-01-19 04:02 pm (UTC)Are the classes that you're not doing so well in ones that allow you to do this kind of extrapolation, or are they classes that are "how well do you regurgitate what section 508 states"?
I know I always got so bleeding frustrated at school when people who were utterly clueless did better than I did. Now that I'm older, I don't mind so much because I realize that the classes were geared a lot towards "measurable" things, like regurgitation, and it's much harder to measure (on an entire classroom) true competency and ability to use the knowledge in practical applications. I.E., How do you "measure" someone who is so adaptable and flexible that they can travel to a foreign country and do litigation in an unfamiliar environment, with rules that are different from what you were taught in schools?
Quit selling yourself short and saying maybe you're not as smart as your peers. Are they working in addition to school? And do they have the same ability to see as clearly as you do on issues?
Maybe it is worth it to talk to the professor to ask why you did get a flat b. Not to have it changed, but to figure out what it is that's being measured that you're not doing well at. Maybe they're looking at some (inane?) criteria that you're not focusing on.
You haven't failed your goal yet, you just haven't figured out how to do it yet.