This last semester was a bit dicey, I almost made a "B" in Political Science, but it was mostly because I neglected it for the first half of the semester. I still would have made a 3.81 GPA for the semester if I had made a "B" in that class. There never was a question of getting anything other than an "A" in the other classes.
The other classes were:
- Calculus I
Walked into the final with better than a 97 average. - Intro to Computer Programming I
Had better than a 100 for the entire semester. Perfect final. Finished the course with 101.6%. - Physical Education
Pretty sure I had the highest score in that class. - World Literature
I did have a "B" average for a time, but there were only four exams in the semester. - Intro to Political Science
All those classes total 16 hours. I elected to not take summer classes because the hours were abysmal; 4 hours per day, two days a week for the entire summer just for calculus class? I like math, but not that much. Also, it would have infringed on the taekwondo class time. Can't touch taekwondo time.
Next semester, I will be taking an "overloaded" 18 hours (the limit without extra permission is 17.) I have two very easy classes, Microeconomics and Intro to Computer Science II, an estimated medium, Calculus II, and two unknowns, Geology and American History II. I have equated this to taking four classes: I could very well teach the computer class and the economics class will be a breeze now that I know calculus.
Before I return from this small tangent, I should note my college gives:
- Average for the class—Letter—Grade points for the class
- 100-89.5—"A"—4.0
- 89.4-79.5—"B"—3.0
- 79.4-69.5—"C"—2.0
- 69.4-59.5—"D"—1.0
- <59.4—"F"—0.0
The odd decimals are from rounding. A professor may override that scale if she wishes to, but that scale is, for the most part, universal. It may be different for other colleges. It is nice to only have to make a 90 in a class to get full credit, which is something I am slightly concerned about when it comes to go to Georgia Tech or Kennesaw, but if one makes only 10% error in a class (it's never a strict 10%, as the grade weights are never on a one question one point scale, always an arbitrary number of points for each question), she has more or less mastered that class, in my opinion.
Going back to the original topic, why is everybody congratulating me on something that was inevitable? It is gratifying to get the accolades, but I knew I was going to make the Dean's List every time once I made all "A"s the first semester. In addition, I read somewhere the average GPA is 3.22 now. I am too lazy to find that source, I've looked through hundreds of webpages today and Chrome's history is hard to use with all the tabs I use. Anyway, with the average just below the 3.5 required for the Dean's List, did anybody ever really doubt I would get on the list?
I suppose it is a difference in standards. I would be furious with myself if I did not make the Dean's List, but half of all college students cannot make 3.22. To me, a "B" means I failed; to some random student a "B" is good grade. Now, this does not mean I must get 100s on all the tests and exams. I will work to keep my grade above 92, but above 95, I do not really keep track of it, especially after mid-terms.
I italicized the word "work" because while I prepare for nearly all tests, I do not do more than read over what is to be covered on the test and perhaps read the material again if I have not already. I do not view it as work, merely being prepared for what must be done: get a good grade. While I realize that is close to the definition of the word "work," I cannot stand the feeling of being unprepared; therefore, while I do not enjoy preparing for all the exams I take, it is much better than going to a test without studying for it. I could get a passing grade without preparing, but not a good grade to my standards.
Indeed, many times I have considered not doing extra study before a test to see what my grade would be. However, I can never compare the difference between studying and not studying as by taking a test, even if it is an old test or a test that "doesn't count," I learn from that experience and I effectively study for the real test. Another way to state it is we learn from everything, including tests. You will know how it is presented, what is stressed, what type of questions, multiple-choice or essay. Even if a completely different type of test is given, by different test makers, no less, you will still have the initial test to stimulate your memory. By the very act of observing, you change reality; but, if you do not observe, you will never know what reality is.
Well, I've lived up to the blog's name, this is a very rampant kind of post. I will give it a good proofread and then you can have double the amount of my thoughts for the week.
No comments:
Post a Comment