An "A Student"'s Apology

Over at FSP is a post that discusses the merits of hiring "B students" in lieu of "A students". Of course, the premise that high grades does not necessarily imply, or even correlate with, research ability is often quite true. However, does this mean that now we have an inverse correlation with grades and actual ability?

I think we are all familiar with the "premed stereotype". You know, the kind of student who will do almost anything to claw themselves straight A's, and merely memorize information rather than learning the material (and putting things together themselves) for the sake of learning it. And there's truth to that; I admit that I make fun of premeds myself, on, oh, any number of occasions.

So now the current trend seems to be that most straight-A students are premeds. With the package deal including not just high grades, but a sense of entitlement, high-maintenance requirements/"neediness", a lack of imagination, and even spectacular incompetence in anything other than rote memorization. So the stereotype would suggest. In other words, straight A's, in the minds of many people that I've read, correlates with uselessness.

Does this mean that straight A's are now worthless, except as an indicator of memorization skill? Does this mean that anyone looking at my transcript will believe that, "Oh, she's just stupid little premed like all the rest; probably no better in research or anything else than any other (B/C level) student"? There is something wrong with this picture, methinks.

Grades happen to be a matter of personal pride with me; maybe it's cultural, or just me being shallow, but having good grades is a part of my identity. I make it a point to not just get merely straight A's, but straight A's near the high end of the scale. I don't get these marks by memorizing. I get them by asking professors strange (evil, stupid, or otherwise) questions. By reading the textbook and related references. By mentally gnawing on problems inspired from what I've learnt (which sometimes leads to dead ends and other times interesting things). By finishing assignments as early as possible so I can correct any deficiencies in my understanding of the material. Also, some of my professors are awesome and give out bonus problems. Evil, but fun, bonus problems.

This pride is apparently misplaced.

I realize that there are other ways to "stand out from the rest"*. I also realize that there are plenty of undergraduates who have a much better understanding on specific topics than I do, regardless of grades. However, it is undeniable that the most obvious indicator of ability is usually well, grades**.

Really. I have 8.5*** courses this term, and I work my backside off to do well****. If straight A's are really so irrelevant in the eyes of the professorial/professional ranks, please let me know.

*My peers, and my professors too, probably all hate me by now. *Laughs*
**I won't say GPA, since I've never really understood the point of the system; if all grade scales are more-or-less arbitrary, why not go by percents?
***My school usually - but not always - count labs as half a course; I've gotten into the habit of counting *all* labs as half-courses.
****I do make one notable exception: my grades suck on courses I don't care about *cough "practical" computer science cough*. Sure, they are still A's, but just barely.

(Remark: I am grumpier than usual at the moment, because I am marking. Marking invariably makes me grumpy.)