Jet has the same tendency. He does great on spelling tests; but doesn't do very well when writing, so it didn't and doesn't show up on spelling tests.
OK, I should have asked the question somewhat differently, like if it had somehow mattered how well you were able to spell, say, on a written test, how you would have gone about preparing for that, and what effect this would have had on other things you need (or like) to do. Another way of looking at this is there are only 24 hours in a day, and some of them require sleep – there are only so many hours available in which "effective" learning can take place.
And honestly, my parents didn't care about English or Literature scores other than how they might affect how I got into college. And that was back when parents really didn't talk with teachers that much. The helicopter syndrome wasn't nearly as bad, and they never thought much of it.
Hmmm ... you and I are about the same age. My parents regularly participated in parent-teacher conferences, etc. Friends of my parents and parents of my friends did likewise. I remember seeing the same parents regularly at lots of parent-teacher nights. (BTW, I grew up in NYC.) I asked a friend of mine who grew up in the SFBA whether her parents were involved in parent-teacher conferences and she said yes. Perhaps it's just a regional thing. Also, my parents went to most of the teachers, not just the math and science teachers, time permitting.
So I didn't get hit as hard, emotionally, and kept a pretty even keel. It might not surprise you that I took 7 or 8 courses each quarter my freshman year, and fenced competitively.
I didn't know too many people who did that when I was an undergrad. Most people took four or five classes. Among some MIT students, it seems to have become more commonplace now.
Principles shouldn't be time consuming, if the teachers are teaching it that way. If the classes, however, are pointing towards memorization and just specific applications (as many of the UC school physics and calculus classes were), I could see how it would take a lot more time.
Well, I guess it depends on the way the principles are presented and what the applications are. The scope of responsibility a student might bear for a given class (in terms of being able to answer certain types of questions) can vary quite a lot, especially in "firehose" schools like Caltech and MIT. For example, a favorite question I like to ask people just to see if they can figure it out is which set is larger, the integers or the rational numbers, and why? The way the problem is solved is based on the principles of sets, but the technique is not generalizable to any set (e.g. reals).
And I'm not sure how those students are deemed "more talented" or not?
Well, I was sort of speaking loosely. But to a certain extent, it is the students themselves who are making comparisons with other students, like someone who might feel badly because they'd worked really hard but done poorly relative to someone like your star physicist classmate. (And it gets worse if it's a situation where the professor won't curve grades, like what happens sometimes in one of the freshman physics classes at MIT where over half the students fail.)
no subject
OK, I should have asked the question somewhat differently, like if it had somehow mattered how well you were able to spell, say, on a written test, how you would have gone about preparing for that, and what effect this would have had on other things you need (or like) to do. Another way of looking at this is there are only 24 hours in a day, and some of them require sleep – there are only so many hours available in which "effective" learning can take place.
And honestly, my parents didn't care about English or Literature scores other than how they might affect how I got into college. And that was back when parents really didn't talk with teachers that much. The helicopter syndrome wasn't nearly as bad, and they never thought much of it.
Hmmm ... you and I are about the same age. My parents regularly participated in parent-teacher conferences, etc. Friends of my parents and parents of my friends did likewise. I remember seeing the same parents regularly at lots of parent-teacher nights. (BTW, I grew up in NYC.) I asked a friend of mine who grew up in the SFBA whether her parents were involved in parent-teacher conferences and she said yes. Perhaps it's just a regional thing. Also, my parents went to most of the teachers, not just the math and science teachers, time permitting.
So I didn't get hit as hard, emotionally, and kept a pretty even keel. It might not surprise you that I took 7 or 8 courses each quarter my freshman year, and fenced competitively.
I didn't know too many people who did that when I was an undergrad. Most people took four or five classes. Among some MIT students, it seems to have become more commonplace now.
Principles shouldn't be time consuming, if the teachers are teaching it that way. If the classes, however, are pointing towards memorization and just specific applications (as many of the UC school physics and calculus classes were), I could see how it would take a lot more time.
Well, I guess it depends on the way the principles are presented and what the applications are. The scope of responsibility a student might bear for a given class (in terms of being able to answer certain types of questions) can vary quite a lot, especially in "firehose" schools like Caltech and MIT. For example, a favorite question I like to ask people just to see if they can figure it out is which set is larger, the integers or the rational numbers, and why? The way the problem is solved is based on the principles of sets, but the technique is not generalizable to any set (e.g. reals).
And I'm not sure how those students are deemed "more talented" or not?
Well, I was sort of speaking loosely. But to a certain extent, it is the students themselves who are making comparisons with other students, like someone who might feel badly because they'd worked really hard but done poorly relative to someone like your star physicist classmate. (And it gets worse if it's a situation where the professor won't curve grades, like what happens sometimes in one of the freshman physics classes at MIT where over half the students fail.)